add_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the CLI flag/field-name correspondence, not duplicate handling, auth needs, or the dryRun behavior, so it is modest added value rather than rich disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The CLI-flag aside is marginally useful for naming consistency but is the weakest sentence in an otherwise tight description.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the required payload but leaves dryRun (a behavior-changing flag) and author (an enum with a default) unexplained anywhere. Annotations cover safety, but an agent still cannot tell what dryRun does without guessing.

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 50%: id and comment are documented in the schema, while author and dryRun are not. The description reinforces that comment carries the body and must be supplied, but adds nothing on author or dryRun, so the undocumented half is not compensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a comment to a task'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like create_task or update_task by its narrow action. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling to say why you'd comment rather than edit, so it falls short of the 5 tier.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The mention of update_task is only about field-name consistency, not about choosing between the two tools. An agent gets no routing context beyond the literal action.

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