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

The annotations already convey that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the 'Markdown' detail and makes the mutating nature explicit with 'Add,' which is consistent with the annotations. No deeper behavioral context, such as whether the comment is appended or how the comment is stored, is provided.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the verb, target, and content format with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the operation.

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 simple two-parameter write operation, the description combined with the rich schema and annotations is nearly complete. It tells the agent what to do and the schema fully defines the parameters; the main missing piece is routing guidance among related comment tools, which is captured separately under usage guidelines.

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?

Input schema documentation coverage is 100%, with both 'doc' and 'body' described. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Add'), a resource ('a document'), and the format ('Markdown comment'), making the tool's function clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_comment by specifying the target is a document, though it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_comment, edit_comment, or list_doc_comments. The description implies usage for adding a comment to a document but provides no exclusions or decision criteria.

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