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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the note is visible to session participants, which an agent would not infer from the schema. However, annotations already cover mutation/idempotency/non-destructiveness, and the description says nothing about reversibility (can a resolved comment be reopened?) or permissions.

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 with the action first and the optional parameter detail in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what changes, and who sees the side-effect note. Only reversibility and failure conditions are missing, which are minor for a low-complexity idempotent tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does for 'note' — explaining purpose, audience, and an example of content — while 'comment_id' is left to its self-evident name plus the 'live-session comment' scope in the opening clause.

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 ('Mark a live-session comment as done'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like list_comments or delete_page. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: use it when a comment has been addressed. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the comment must still be open), and no routing to alternatives, though none of the siblings overlap meaningfully.

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