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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real value beyond them: automatic author attribution to the API key and the required infrastructure_asset_comments:write scope. It does not, however, mention that the call is non-idempotent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each carries information (purpose, author handling, auth requirement). No padding, though it is not maximally tight.

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 two-parameter create tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, author semantics, and required scope. Sufficient to invoke correctly, with only minor missing detail (non-idempotency, return shape).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The 'do not pass user_id' note adds minor meaning about author handling, but refers to a parameter that does not exist 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add a comment to an infrastructure feature'), and the feature_id param aligns with 'feature.' It is clearly distinguishable from create_asset_comment by the 'infrastructure' qualifier, though the description uses 'feature' while the name uses 'asset' without reconciling the two.

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?

Provides one concrete usage constraint ('do not pass user_id') and the required scope, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and does not name related tools like create_asset_comment or the list/get comment siblings.

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