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

The description clearly discloses that added comments cannot be edited or deleted afterwardhistorically, an important behavioral caveat not in the schema. It also clarifies that the comment lives in a separate thread from the markdown body. The annotation makes clear this is a write mutation, so no contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences pack the essential constraints: thread separation, comment purpose, immutability, length limit, and the alternative tool for revisions. No filler or redundancy.

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 covers the behavior, the main restriction, and the appropriate alternative tool. Combined with the 100% schema description coverage and annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 the schema already defines body, kind, pageId, and contextRunId. The description adds useful context that page content should not be placed in the comment, but leaves parameter semantics mostly to the schema.

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 that the action adds a comment to a page or database row, clarifying that it creates a thread separate from the markdown body. It also indicates the intended use cases: running notes and closure/complete notes. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 identifies when to use an alternative tool: "use update_page for content you need to revise." It also frames the tool as appropriate for running notes or closure notes, making the decision boundary clear.

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