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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world). The description adds a useful behavioral trait beyond annotations: comment visibility to everyone who can see the objective.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. The visibility note is a concise, relevant second sentence.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It leaves parameter semantics and return behavior unstated, which is a gap but not critical given the simple schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for two required parameters. 'To an objective' loosely maps to objectiveId, but there is no explanation of content format, constraints, or objectiveId sourcing beyond the schema's raw type and length limits.

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 (Add) and resource (comment) with the target (an objective). No sibling tool adds comments, so 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 by the action and target, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Since no sibling tool duplicates this behavior, the lack of exclusions is less harmful.

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