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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true indicating a mutation. The description only adds the REST endpoint reference, which is technical context but not behavioral. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether existing comments are affected.

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: the first provides the clear purpose, the second gives the REST endpoint. No filler or redundant information.

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 mutation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention return values, side effects beyond adding a comment, or any authorization requirements, but given the low complexity this is acceptable.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both 'id' (call id to comment on) and 'content' (the comment text). The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'comment / note to a call'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tag_call (adds a tag) and get_call (reads call data).

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 implies the tool is used when you want to attach a comment to a call, but provides no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance comparing it to alternatives. It does not say 'use this instead of tag_call for textual notes' or mention any prerequisites.

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