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

Adds real information beyond the annotations: the comment becomes part of the record's history and cannot be removed through this API, which tells the agent the write is persistent and irreversible via the surface it has. This doesn't contradict destructiveHint=false (no existing data is overwritten), but the description doesn't mention auth/permission needs or what is returned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the persistence caveat, then the endpoint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, target, and the key durability caveat. Only minor gaps remain (no mention of what the call returns or any permission requirements).

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 both parameters (comment text, external_id) are already fully documented in the schema, including the GUID pattern and length bounds. The description only restates that the record is identified by a GUID, adding no new syntax or constraint detail.

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 ('Add a comment to a Bind ERP record') plus the identifier type (GUID) and the endpoint. No sibling tool handles comments, so the agent can immediately tell this apart from the create_*/get_* family.

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 usage context is implied by 'Add a comment to a record' and the examples (client, prospect, order), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Since no sibling competes for this action, the omission is mild rather than harmful.

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