add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by explaining supported comment types, the auto-detection behavior of code_snippet, and the distinction between single and multi-line suggestions. This goes beyond a simple 'add comment' statement, though it does not mention side effects or error handling (e.g., strict match failures), which are partially covered in the schema.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a numbered list to structure four distinct capabilities. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality and usage patterns well. It lacks explicit guidance on some edge cases or return values, but the schema compensates. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 13 parameters, including relationships like 'Use this OR code_snippet, not both.' The description adds a high-level synthesis of modes but does not provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb+resource ('Add a comment to a pull request') and enumerates four distinct modes: general comments, replies, inline comments, and code suggestions. This differentiates it from sibling tools like approve_pull_request or request_changes, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explains when to use the tool (for adding comments) and provides guidance on selecting modes (e.g., line_number vs code_snippet). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the four-mode breakdown gives clear context for choosing among tool features. No exclusions are stated, but the tool's scope is evident.

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