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

The description discloses immediate posting, no source modification, and irreversibility of delivery/reading—side effects that go beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true). This fully informs the agent of the tool's consequences.

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 compact—two sentences—and well structured, covering action, side effects, and constraints without redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 description captures core behavior and some constraints, but omits details about the output schema (which is present) and does not fully explain the remaining parameters. It is adequate for basic use but incomplete for nuanced 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?

The description explains key parameters (fileId/path as exclusive targets, quote for inferring offsets) but leaves many others (selectionTo, contextBefore, contextAfter, selectionFrom) without any explanation. With schema coverage at 0%, the description fails to substantively clarify most parameters.

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 ('Create ... and post'), resource ('Comment on a .tex project file'), and scope ('to project collaborators') without ambiguity. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like reply_to_comment and list_comments.

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 explicitly notes that the action does not change the source file, warns that deletion cannot undo delivery/reading, and instructs to provide exactly one target (fileId or path). These are concrete usage conditions that guide when and how to invoke the tool.

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