op_comment_work_package

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations by disclosing that notifications are disabled unless notify=true, which is a meaningful side-effect control for an agent. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the notification caveat earns its place as essential side-effect information.

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 three-parameter tool, the description covers the core action, the comment format, and the notification behavior. It does not explain what the response contains or that repeated calls create duplicate comments, but the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation keep this from being a major gap.

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 67% and the description adds only limited meaning beyond the schema: it restates the notification default behavior and the markdown format already present in the schema. The id parameter remains minimally documented, but this is sufficient for a simple numeric identifier.

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 specific action ('Add a markdown comment') with a clear resource ('work package') and format ('markdown'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like op_update_work_package and op_create_work_package because the intent is to add a comment, not create or update the package itself.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to or name alternatives. The sibling list helps infer that this tool is for commenting rather than creating or updating work packages, but the description itself provides no direct exclusion, alternative, or condition-based selection guidance.

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