Add categorized reviewer comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden, and it only adds a single note about topicId. It does not disclose idempotency behavior, error handling, or implications of the 'expectedVersion' and 'idempotencyKey' parameters, which are critical for a write operation.

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 very brief, which technically makes it concise, but it sacrifices important clarity for brevity. It front-loads the main action but provides too little detail for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 such a complex tool with a nested comments array and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't clarify batch behavior, partial-failure scenarios, or the meaning of required fields like 'expectedVersion' and 'idempotencyKey', leaving significant gaps.

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 0% description coverage, yet the description only hints at the 'comments' parameter being a batch and the use of 'topicId'. Required parameters like 'sessionId', 'expectedVersion', and 'idempotencyKey' remain unexplained, leaving the agent guessing their semantics.

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 it attaches reviewer comments to existing patches, indicating the batch nature and the required topicId context. However, it doesn't strongly distinguish itself from the sibling 'add_comment' (singular) tool, though 'batch' helps.

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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'article_review_add_comment' or 'article_review_reply_comment'. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context where this batch tool is preferred.

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