add_comment

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior on its own; it only says it adds a comment. It does not mention whether the task must exist, whether comments can be edited, what response is returned, or any side effects beyond creating the comment.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical example; every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter mutation, the description is adequate to select and minimally invoke the tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return/error behavior and any situational constraints, leaving the agent to infer those.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides some compensation: 'comentario' and 'tarea' map to the text and task_id parameters, and the commit/version example clarifies expected text content. It does not explicitly describe task_id or text, but their meaning is largely self-evident from the names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Añade un comentario a una tarea' (adds a comment to a task), and the parenthetical example about commit/version adds concrete purpose. It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_comments and update_task because adding is a distinct action.

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 implies the use case: when a comment must be attached to a task, especially to record the commit or version that closed it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as list_comments or how it relates to create_task/update_task.

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