Add note comment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds the explicit warning 'Repeating the call posts a duplicate,' which reinforces the non-idempotent behavior. It also clarifies that comments are appended to a thread, providing useful context beyond the 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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the action, the non-idempotency warning, and the prerequisite source. No wasted words, effectively front-loaded.

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 append-comment tool, the description covers the action, side effect (duplicate posting), and necessary prerequisite. It lacks return value details, but without an output schema, this is not a major gap. The sibling context and annotations round out the picture.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining where to get the note_id, but does not elaborate on 'comment' or 'athlete' beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('calendar note's thread'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tp_add_workout_comment. It also mentions the source of note_id (tp_list_notes or tp_create_note), adding clarity.

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 when to use the tool (when you have a calendar note and want to append a comment) and references prerequisite tool calls for obtaining the note ID. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like tp_add_workout_comment, but the phrase 'calendar note' differentiates it.

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