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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so the description is doing the disclosure work: it names the acting identity (the token's user), the audience (employees who can see the event), and the transport endpoint POST /events/{id}/comments. It does not cover rate limits, permission failures, or whether the comment can later be edited or removed, and it does not explain the destructiveHint classification.

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 sentences plus an endpoint tag, with the primary action and side effect front-loaded and formatting guidance trailing. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 write tool with no output schema and high schema coverage, the description supplies what matters: side effects, identity, audience, and rich-text formatting. It omits only error/permission behavior and what the response returns (e.g., a comment id), which is a minor gap.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by documenting supported markdown and the mention syntax '[Full Name](/people/<profile_id>)', which is not expressible in the plain string parameter. The event_id provenance hint reinforces what the schema already says rather than extending it.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Add a comment to a feed event') and implicitly separates itself from the read-side sibling namely_list_event_comments and from namely_create_announcement. An agent can tell exactly what this creates without opening the 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?

It gives the operating context: the comment is posted as the token's user, visible to everyone who can see the event, and event_id must come from namely_list_events. It does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g., read comments via namely_list_event_comments) or state when not to comment, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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