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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: plain-text-only input, a 5000-character ceiling, the side effect that the page moves up its list, the archived-page restriction, and the required editor role. That is unusually strong disclosure of auth, limits, and side effects for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with constraints appended in a tight semicolon-separated chain. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

Without an output schema, the description is largely self-sufficient: input medium, limit, side effect, permissions, and the archived-page constraint are all present. It omits what the call returns and whether the comment triggers notifications, which are minor but real gaps for a 2-param mutation.

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% — both pageId and text are already described in the schema, including the 5000-character limit repeated here. The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Adds a comment') and scopes the target as 'a note or discussion', which distinguishes it from the sibling add_comment / edit_page_comment family. It does not explicitly name those siblings or explain the task-comment vs page-comment split, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives two real preconditions — not usable on an archived page, and requires the editor role on the project — which is clear context for when the call will succeed. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use instead (e.g. add_comment for tasks) or what to do when the page is archived.

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