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. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: author and mentions are server-owned, and approval requirements are configurable by org admins while business workflow approvals always apply. This is useful 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?

Two compact sentences with no waste. The core action and server-owned fields are front-loaded, followed by relevant approval context.

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?

The tool is a mutation with annotations and an output schema, so some burden is lifted. However, with 0% schema description coverage and two required parameters, the description should do more to explain parameter semantics and usage conditions.

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 description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain the required rfiId or data.content fields, though the note that author and mentions are server-owned helps clarify what should not be supplied.

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 and resource: 'Add a rfi comment as the current user.' It also clarifies that author and mentions are server-owned, which distinguishes this from a generic comment creation tool. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like update_rfi_comment or list_rfi_comments, so it falls short of full sibling 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_rfi_comment, delete_rfi_comment, or list_rfi_comments. The approval requirement sentence is behavioral context rather than usage guidance, leaving implied creation semantics as the only signal.

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