taskops_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden — and it delivers. It discloses that closed cards accept append-only postscripts without reopening, that mentions only deliver on open cards and clear automatically upon the recipient's next write, that the thread is never truncated, and that sub-agents must pass an explicit actor to avoid the board hearing the orchestrator. These are non-obvious side effects an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the primary function, closed-card semantics, mention delivery, actor identity caveat, and repo_path purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and packs critical edge cases into a few sentences without fluff. The structure with colons and semicolons keeps it scannable.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all critical usage nuances: mention delivery only on open cards, the actor requirement for sub-agents, repo_path for multi-project scenarios, and the append-only thread behavior. There is no output schema to explain, and the description addresses every parameter's practical implication, leaving no operational gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions are already rich (e.g., task explains any card, mentions explains delivery). The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: it explains why actor matters for sub-agents ('without it the board hears the orchestrator') and why repo_path is needed ('the host runs ONE MCP server per session ... without this a second project is unreachable'). This adds genuine value beyond the structured fields.

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 opens with 'Say something on ANY card' — a specific verb and resource — and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing it works on closed cards, others' cards, and other teams. It clearly positions taskops_comment as the generic commenting tool, unlike taskops_update (which likely mutates card fields) or taskops_assign (which changes ownership). The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: 'THE channel between agents in parallel: when your files meet theirs, say so on their card.' It also warns about closed cards for mentions ('a closed card delivers nothing, so address the living card instead'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use taskops_update for structured edits'), so it stops short of the highest bar for explicit when-not guidance.

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