tp_add_note_comment

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. The single sentence does not reveal any behavioral traits (e.g., whether the comment is appended or replaces, permission requirements, side effects). 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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It is concise but under-specified; while it avoids verbosity, it omits important details that could be added without significantly increasing length.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (one optional) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain success indications, constraints on note_id or comment length, or behavior when the note does not exist.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no explanation of the 'athlete' parameter's role for coach accounts).

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 'Add a comment to a calendar note' clearly specifies the action (add), object (comment), and target (calendar note). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_add_workout_comment and tp_get_workout_comments.

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 like tp_add_workout_comment. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not to use, or any context about the target resource.

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