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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context on top: Markdown support, the fact that @username mentions notify users, scope-level side effects, and a Weblate 5.12+ version requirement. It does not address auth/permissions or whether comments can later be edited or deleted, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation class ('WRITE:'), then scope semantics, then version and endpoint. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the side effects, the enum semantics, the prerequisite workflow, and the version gate. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 goes further by explaining what each scope enum value means in domain terms ('this language' vs 'a source-string issue report') and by characterizing the comment as Markdown with mention semantics. That is meaningfully more than the schema's terse one-liners.

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 one string') and is clearly separable from the sibling weblate_list_unit_comments. The 'WRITE:' prefix and the raw endpoint reinforce the operation without ambiguity.

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?

Explains what each `scope` value is for (global vs translation vs report) and notes that 'report' requires the review workflow, which is a genuine prerequisite. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like weblate_add_suggestion or list_unit_comments, so it stops just 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.