ida_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action and repeats the enum values from the schema, but it does not explain side effects such as whether an existing comment is overwritten, whether the comment persists in the IDA database, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. It avoids any fluff or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool. The list of kinds is helpful and not wasteful, even though it mirrors the schema.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what happens after the call (e.g., success behavior, return value) and clarify the address format (e.g., linear address, expression). The description omits these details, leaving the agent without enough information to fully understand the tool's behavior in context. It is minimally viable but incomplete.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions: address, text, and kind (with enum). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and it merely restates the kinds that are already in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 at an address.' It specifies the resource (address) and the action (add comment), and lists the comment kinds, which distinguishes it from other IDA modification tools like ida_rename or ida_patch_bytes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings by naming alternatives, so it lacks the explicit sibling distinction of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ida_rename or ida_set_type. The description simply states what it does without context on when it is appropriate or when another tool should be used instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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