create_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context such as return behavior, required permissions, or side effects. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation information.

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 extremely short but under-specified rather than concisely complete. It lacks essential context, so the brevity is not a positive attribute; it is closer to the 'process' example than to a well-structured tool description.

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 create operation with 5 required fields and an enum-based document type, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what a comment is, where it applies, or what inputs are necessary, leaving the agent without critical guidance.

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 schema has 7 parameters with only 43% description coverage, and the description provides zero parameter guidance. Critical fields like text, user_id, and is_public remain inadequately explained, and the description does not compensate for the schema gaps.

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 'Create a comment' simply restates the tool name and title, providing no additional context about the scope or nature of comments. It does not distinguish from sibling tools beyond the obvious verb.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The description fails to mention that comments are attached to quotes, orders, or invoices, and omits any prerequisites or contextual usage.

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