Add project feedback

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

Annotations already indicate mutating behavior (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds useful context by clarifying that it doesn't modify source or approve the version, and 'attributable' implies author tracking. Still, it doesn't disclose return behavior or error cases.

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, direct, front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description leaves major gaps: no return-value description, no mention of optional positioning/reply parameters, and no guidance on idempotency key behavior. It is inadequate for an agent to fully understand invocation side effects.

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 only 44% for 9 parameters. The description mentions 'comment' but provides no details for project_id, version_id, label, page, or reply_to_feedback_id. Thus it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'add an attributable review comment to a saved project version.' The added sentence explicitly differentiates from approval/source modification, distinguishing it from siblings like approve_version.

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?

Provides context that this tool is for review comments and explicitly states what it does not do (modify source or approve the version). However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use guidance beyond this exclusion.

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