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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a write operation but does not disclose permissions required, whether the comment is immediately visible, rate limits, or any side effects. It only says what it does, not how it behaves.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action. It is concise with no wasted words, though it may be too terse for a tool that requires authentication and has multiple parameters.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain authentication (auth_token), the meaning of actfile_id, or the expected format of content. It leaves significant gaps for correct 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no description for the three parameters. The description does not add any detail about the parameters (content, actfile_id, auth_token) beyond what their names imply. Baseline for 3 parameters with 0% coverage would be low, but the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory; still, the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 (Ajoute/Add) and resource (commentaire/comment to an actfile), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like mcp_like_actfile or mcp_list_actfile_comments. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't elaborate on the nature of an actfile.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., must be logged in, must have access to the actfile), or any conditions. The description merely states the action without context.

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