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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states 'Add a comment,' implying a write operation, but does not disclose whether comments are visible to all, require permissions, or have any side effects (e.g., notifications). Minimal behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured but may be overly concise given the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, no annotations). Not penalized heavily for brevity, but there is room for more context.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not explain return values, expected behavior, or constraints. For a tool that modifies data, more completeness (e.g., success/failure, permissions) is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema already provides meaning for each field. The description adds no additional explanation beyond the generic action. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not add value over 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?

The description 'Add a comment to a file.' clearly states the verb (Add) and resource (comment to a file). It is straightforward but does not differentiate from sibling tools like drive_feedback or drive_write, which could also involve adding content. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., drive_feedback, drive_write). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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