Read client feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only, changes nothing,' reveals edge cases ('Anonymous commenters appear as 'Guest'...' and 'deleted comments are omitted'), and specifies scope requirements ('Requires the kits:read scope'). This is unusually transparent for a tool description.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands with context, usage guidance, edge cases, and requirements. Every sentence earns its place—background context, actionable follow-ups, edge cases, and scope are all relevant. Despite length, it is dense and efficient, not redundant.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the returned content: variation, author display name, ordering, and omission of deleted comments. It also covers invocation context, read-only nature, no pagination, and required scope. This is complete for a single-parameter, non-nested list operation.

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 already has 100% coverage with a good description of projectId ('Owned brand project id from list_brand_projects'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it only contextualizes the operation around the share link, not the parameter itself.

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 ('Read') and identifies the exact resource: 'what the client wrote on a project's variations through the share link.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by detailing scope ('a project's variations'), ordering ('oldest first'), and included fields (variation, author display name), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context: it is 'the return leg of the share loop' and tells the agent to 'Call it before revising.' It names concrete follow-up tools ('update_brand_variation, update_theme, or remove_brand_variation'), and states a limitation ('takes no pagination'). This is strong when-to-use guidance with clear alternatives.

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