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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety and retry profile is largely covered. The description's 'without directly changing document prose' is a useful clarification of mutation scope, but it partially restates destructiveHint=false, and adds no auth, rate-limit, or failure-mode detail.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the input flexibility, then the return contract. No filler or restated title.

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?

Output schema exists so return format need not be explained, yet the description still tells the agent which values to carry forward into follow-up calls, which is valuable chaining context for a 9-parameter tool. Minor gap: no note on anchor failure behavior or idempotent retry expectations beyond what commandId's schema text provides.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema handles most parameter documentation, but the description adds real routing guidance the schema does not: it tells the agent that natural workspace names and document titles are acceptable and that internal routing identifiers are optional. It also flags the anchor/body requirement implicitly via 'anchored ... comment'.

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+resource ('Add an anchored review comment') and immediately scopes it ('without directly changing document prose'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like add_suggestion, edit_article, and save_article_content. An agent can route to it without opening any schema.

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 names the downstream tools (reply_to_thread, resolve_thread) that consume the returned threadId/targetId, giving clear workflow context for when this tool belongs in a sequence. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions, e.g. when to prefer add_suggestion over a comment.

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