Add categorized review comment

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

The only behavioral trait disclosed is the constraint 'exactly one primary topic,' which implies a restriction on topic association. No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden for side effects, concurrency (expectedVersion), idempotency (idempotencyKey), or other behavioral nuances. The description fails to mention these, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, succinct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and constraint, making it easy to parse quickly. It is appropriately terse, though this brevity contributes to other dimension gaps.

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 complexity (20 parameters, 6 required, no output schema, no annotations), this description is severely incomplete. It only captures the basic action and one constraint, but does not explain required concurrency and idempotency parameters, the nature of the comment body, allowed enums, or any return behavior. This is far from a complete specification for a tool with such a broad 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?

With 20 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter roles. It only hints at 'reviewer comment' and 'patch' and 'topic,' but does not describe the required parameters like sessionId, expectedVersion, idempotencyKey, or the body content. The description adds marginal value for core parameters but leaves the vast majority of parameters unexplained.

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 the action: 'Attach one reviewer comment to a patch under exactly one primary topic.' It uses a specific verb ('attach'), resource ('reviewer comment'), target ('patch'), and a distinguishing constraint ('exactly one primary topic'). This differentiates it from siblings like 'article_review_add_comments' (plural) and 'article_review_reply_comment' (reply context).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention a 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, nor does it reference sibling tools. The implied usage is minimal, but there are no explicit exclusions or criteria for choosing this over other comment-related tools.

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