aircall_add_comment

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the behavioral trait that comments are visible in the Aircall dashboard, but does not disclose additional side effects, permissions, or failure modes. This is modest added value beyond annotations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the dashboard visibility note adds useful context without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral outcome. It does not cover potential edge cases (e.g., invalid call_id) or prerequisite conditions, but given the tool's simplicity, the information is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the schema with simple descriptions (call_id: 'The call ID', content: 'Comment content'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Add a comment to a call') with a specific verb and resource. The additional clause about visibility in the Aircall dashboard helps distinguish this tool from sibling tools like aircall_add_tags, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when a comment needs to be added to a call, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The visibility note provides some context but no comparative guidance against sibling tools.

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