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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the notification side effect ('Notifies task users and mentioned users'), the exact permission requirements (dvs:write plus full write permission on the DVS register), the mention syntax, and a retry caution. The prompt-injection warning about DVS text being data is valuable context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, mention syntax, side effects, permissions, and safety guidance. The core action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 a two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no descriptive annotations, it covers permissions, side effects, and safe retry behavior well. The remaining gap is the target identity: it never clarifies whether dvs_document_id refers to a task or a document, nor what the call returns.

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 carry parameter meaning. It adds the mention format '@[USER:id]' for the comment parameter, which is genuinely useful, but leaves dvs_document_id unexplained and does not reconcile it with the 'task' wording.

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 ('Add a comment to a task'), which clearly separates it from read-side siblings like filesfm_dvs_get_comments. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, and it calls the target a 'task' while the required parameter is dvs_document_id, a small ambiguity an agent must resolve.

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 a clear precondition-style rule: 'Do not repeat an uncertain write; read the task first,' which implicitly routes the agent to the read tools before retrying. It stops short of naming the specific sibling (dvs_get_document vs dvs_get_comments) that should be used for that read.

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