Comment on the tracker issue of a bug

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the minimal annotations: it is not idempotent, cannot edit or delete comments, comments are public and authored by the Linear account, and it advises sending a single finished comment. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) are consistent but lack detail; the description fills the gap completely.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and uses clear sections (action, return, use cases, behavior). Every sentence is necessary and informative, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all relevant aspects: return value ('confirmation message'), behavior, and usage constraints. It is complete for effective agent invocation.

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 description adds value by clarifying constraints: 'Ids belonging to another project are rejected' and 'Must not be empty or whitespace only.' It also mentions that the body supports Markdown, which is not in the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Post a comment on the tracker issue linked to a bug.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (e.g., feedbug_list_bugs, feedbug_get_bug), which read or list bugs rather than adding comments.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('document a fix, ask the reporter for a reproduction, or leave an update') and when not to use it ('bug is tracked in GitHub' and 'never use it to talk to the user running you'). It also provides an alternative context (GitHub vs Linear).

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