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

Annotations only supply the safety/idempotency profile; the description goes well beyond them by spelling out the idempotency retry semantics, the no-mention/no-notification side effect, the permission precondition on the target record, and an explicit prompt-injection warning about untrusted CRM field values. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure 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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and side effects, with the security note kept as a separate closing line. Every sentence carries information; the only minor cost is the slightly choppy, note-like cadence rather than a fully flowing description.

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 write tool with no output schema and mostly undocumented parameters, the description covers purpose, permissions, idempotency, notification behavior, and input constraints. What remains thin is the identification of the target record (objectType + id) and the workspaceId requirement, which the agent must infer or read from the schema.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of the five params: idempotencyKey (fresh per comment, retry behavior) and body (plain text, 4000-char cap). The record identifier is only implied by 'one record you may update', and workspaceId's semantics are left to the schema, but overall it adds real meaning beyond 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 and resource ('Adds a comment ... to one record'), plus the content constraint (plain text, max 4000 characters) and a permission bound ('one record you may update'). That is enough to separate it from list_comments or update_record, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 actionable operational guidance: send a fresh idempotencyKey per new comment, and retrying with the same key returns the first result rather than acting twice. It also tells the agent the comment notifies nobody, which affects whether this is the right tool. No explicit alternative tool is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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