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

Annotations cover the safety profile (write, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: comments persist and are visible in get_task and the NEXUS web console. The 5000-character limit is also disclosed. It does not describe error behavior for an invalid task_id, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 action, then behavior, then a clean Args block. Efficient overall, though the Args section slightly restates parameter names that are already visible in the schema.

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 purpose, all parameters, defaults, and where the comment appears. It omits only edge-case behavior (e.g., failure on unknown task_id), which is minor given the annotations and schema.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: task_id is documented as a UUID, content as text up to 5000 characters, and author enumerates the valid values ('agent' default, 'user', 'system'). This adds constraint and enum detail absent from the schema.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a comment ... to a standalone task'), and the parenthetical (progress notes, findings, context) clarifies what a comment is. The 'standalone task' qualifier hints at scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_task or create_task.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. Usage is only implied by the content examples and by stating where comments surface (get_task, web console).

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