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

The annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false) already indicate this is a write operation that is not idempotent or destructive. The description adds 'public context' and 'follow-up' but does not provide additional behavior details such as return values, side effects, or error scenarios. It adds minimal nuance beyond 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 concise but contains some redundancy. The first sentence ('Use this when...') and the second sentence ('Add a comment...') largely repeat the same intent. While it is front-loaded with usage context, the duplication could be streamlined. It is still clear and not overly verbose.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, and prerequisites (no API key, requires author name). It fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly without missing critical information.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (body, post_id, author_name). The description mentions 'Requires an author name' but that is redundant with the schema's required field. It does not add any extra meaning to the parameters themselves, so it does not go beyond the schema's coverage.

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 purpose: adding a comment to a feature request on a public VoteShip board. It uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('comment to a feature request'), and explicitly mentions 'public context' or 'follow-up', distinguishing it from other actions. The description is unambiguous and directly tells the agent what the tool does.

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 states when to use the tool: when the user wants to add public context or a follow-up to a known VoteShip feature request. It also mentions that no API key is needed and that an author name is required, which are important operational prerequisites. This clearly differentiates it from browsing, submitting, or upvoting (the sibling tools).

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