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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by naming the auth scope required, which is not in the annotations. Beyond that, no return format, rate limit, or side-effect details are provided.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the purpose is front-loaded before the scope requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose and scope. However, it omits any differentiation from the many similar comment-creation siblings, which is a meaningful gap given the dense toolset.

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 both parameters (comment and asset_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning or format constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (Create) and resource (comment on an asset), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like create_infrastructure_asset_comment, create_project_comment, or create_work_order_comment, leaving the agent to infer scope from the tool name alone.

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 only guidance is the required scope 'asset_comments:write', which is a prerequisite rather than usage direction. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative sibling tool mentioned, so an agent gets no help choosing among the many create_*_comment tools.

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