Comment on a change request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation. The description merely restates the action without adding new behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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, well-structured sentence front-loading the action and resource. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 comment-posting tool, the description covers the essential purpose. No output schema exists, so return values are not expected. However, adding a note about what success looks like (e.g., comment ID) would improve completeness slightly.

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%, with all parameters documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides adequate descriptions.

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 ('Post a markdown comment') and the resource ('on a change request'), with additional context '(review feedback / notes)'. It uniquely distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'gitbook_create_change_request' which creates a change request, not comments on one.

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 or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'gitbook_merge_change_request' or 'gitbook_get_page' could be related, but no explicit contextual advice is given.

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