add_pr_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that comments can be general or line-specific, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or dependencies like needing path and line together for line comments. The terse wording leaves mutational behavior unqualified.

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 a single sentence with no fluff and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes to meaning, and the key distinction of general or line-specific commenting is included.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should compensate with operational context. It does not explain required dependencies, such as using path and line only when commenting on a specific line, or how this relates to pending reviews. This is insufficient for an agent to reliably choose parameters.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds only a high-level hint about general versus line-specific comments, without detailing when line, path, or commit_id should be provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does most of the work.

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: 'Add a comment to a PR.' It also notes that comments can be general or line-specific, which adds useful scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools like submit_pr_review or validate_pr_comment_target.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as submit_pr_review or get_pr_comments. The context is only implied by the action 'add,' with no exclusions or decision heuristics.

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