Add project feedback

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not open-world, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds value by explaining that the comment is attributable and does not modify or approve, which clarifies the mutation's scope. However, it lacks details on whether it always succeeds, errors for invalid versions, or requires special permissions. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description provides some additional behavioral context but not comprehensive transparency.

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 a clarifying follow-up sentence, both concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words and is easy to scan. It could slightly benefit from mentioning parameter parameters, but remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and annotations lacking details, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value (e.g., feedback ID), behavior on duplicate idempotency_key, or how reply_to_feedback_id works. The context signals of high parameter count and low schema coverage demand a richer description.

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 44% (4 of 9 parameters have descriptions). The description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no value beyond the schema. For the parameters without schema descriptions (x, y, page, label, reply_to_feedback_id), the description provides no guidance. Since coverage is low, a score of 3 is appropriate because the description fails to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states 'Add an attributable review comment to a saved project version' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_project_pin' and 'approve_version' by explicitly noting it does not modify or approve. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other feedback-related tools like 'resolve_project_feedback' or 'list_project_feedback'.

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 some context by stating it 'does not modify source or approve the version', which helps the agent understand it is for commenting only. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'add_project_pin' for non-attributable notes or 'resolve_project_feedback' for marking issues), and no mention of prerequisites like requiring a saved project version.

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