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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: idempotency_key reuse for retries, enforcement of connection write access and AI-comment preference, and optional pinning via CSS selector or exact text. These details help an agent understand side effects and constraints without contradicting the annotations.

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 three dense sentences with no filler. Core action, optional pinning behavior, retry semantics, and connection constraints are stated efficiently and in a logical order.

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 an 11-parameter tool, the schema plus description cover the essential semantics well, and the output schema reduces the need to explain return values. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling comment tools, but the description is not materially incomplete for invoking the tool.

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 91%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description adds a few semantic extras, such as Markdown Lite support and the pinning concept, but does not substantially compensate for or expand upon the already rich 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action and resource: 'Create website feedback on a page', and adds meaningful specifics about optional pinning and Markdown support. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling comment tools like update_comment and reply_to_comment, but the creation-focused wording makes the purpose evident.

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_comment, reply_to_comment, or bulk_update_comments. It mentions retries and enforced write access, but does not state exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool.

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