add_comment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description only states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits beyond what the annotations declare (e.g., that it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write). It omits potential side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes. The full burden falls on the description since annotations are minimal, yet nothing is added.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by a parameter list. Every sentence is useful, with no fluff. Minor formatting optimizations could group parameters but the content has no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a straightforward add-comment operation, the description covers the basic inputs, but it does not explain what the operation returns, how errors manifest, or any required permissions. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for return-value details, yet the writing nature of the tool and 0% schema coverage suggest more context could be provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does list all 3 parameters with brief clarifications: issue_id ('ID or URL'), text ('markdown'), instance ('youTrack instance (optional)'). This adds some value beyond the bare schema names, but the notes are minimal and do not elaborate on formats, constraints, or defaults in detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb-resource pair ('Add a comment to a YouTrack issue'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like update_comment or add_article_comment. It identifies the resource and target system, though it does not explicitly contrast with add_article_comment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_comment, find_comments). No prerequisites or context are given, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone that this is for creating a new comment on an issue.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.