add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that unresolved mentions cause the call to fail, that no warning is returned, and that the response shape is { id, content }. This is meaningful transparency beyond the schema, though it does not address permissions or other side effects.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The primary action comes first, the important failure caveat is second, and the return shape is last. Every sentence earns its place and the description remains compact.

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 comment-creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: what the tool does, the expected return shape, and a critical failure mode. It is not exhaustive, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by spelling out the mention syntax @[Title](notion-url) and clarifying that this syntax is supported in inline comment text. This supplements the schema's simpler 'supports markdown inline formatting.'

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a page.' It also differentiates itself from append_content by explaining a key mention-resolution difference, so an agent can distinguish this tool from a closely related sibling without inspecting schemas.

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 makes the primary use case clear—add a comment to a page—and provides a meaningful comparison to append_content regarding unresolved mentions. It does not enumerate all alternatives or edge cases, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose this tool over sibling comment-related operations.

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