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

Annotations already flag a non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds substantial context beyond that: it is purely append-only, existing comments remain, a comment is its own object of type comment linked via hascomment, and deletion only sets status to deleted (removing it from the panel). Editing is explicitly impossible. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its append-only nature; the deletion and no-edit notes are genuinely useful rather than filler. It is on the long side and the trailing EN keyword list adds little, but overall it is information-dense.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the lifecycle an agent needs: what gets created (a comment object with link), that properties are untouched, how to remove it, and that editing requires delete-and-rewrite. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters (text, parent, scope_id) are already documented. The description mentions the parent object in prose and the comment udid in the deletion context but adds no format or scope_id semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Einen Kommentar an ein Objekt anhaengen') plus scope ('Verlaufseintrag mit Autor und Zeitstempel'), and explicitly separates itself from onto_object_set_property and onto_object_delete. An agent can distinguish this from the many onto_object_* siblings without opening a schema.

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 explicit use cases ('Notizen und Rueckfragen am Datensatz'), an explicit exclusion ('Es aendert KEINE Properties; dafuer onto_object_set_property'), and routes the delete/edit cases to onto_object_delete. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated.

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