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

Says upfront that it mutates data and requires COMMENTS_WRITE, adding useful permission and side-effect context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. The mutation framing is consistent with annotations, so there is no contradiction.

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 pack the core action, required and optional fields, GraphQL operation, and permission requirement without fluff. Each clause earns its place, and the mutation marker is front-loaded.

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?

Names all relevant parameters and the permission requirement, but with no output schema, 'addComment(comment) → union' is thin for understanding success/error results. The incorrect required-parameter claim also adds ambiguity that keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3; however, the description largely repeats schema field descriptions and adds a harmful inconsistency by listing threadSortOrder as required even though the schema marks it optional with a default of 0. This can mislead an agent into sending or requiring an unnecessary parameter.

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 an explicit action ('add a comment') and target ('meeting discussion thread'), and flags the operation as 'MUTATES Parabol data'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_task, create_reflection, and generic parabol_graphql.

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?

Clear context: use when posting a comment to a Parabol meeting discussion, optionally as a threaded reply or anonymous. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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