write_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose real behavior: the comment is anchored inline to matched text and a new open thread is created, and it states the cutoff-line constraint that would otherwise cause failure. It omits permissions, behavior when the search string is missing or matches multiple times, and whether the file itself is modified.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the one hard constraint. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the cutoff-line rule is a genuinely important behavior. However, for a three-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the missing parameter and matching semantics leave an agent under-informed.

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 0% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: 'target text' hints at how search_string works but says nothing about ambiguity or anchoring failure. filepath and comment_text are never addressed at all.

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 states a specific action pair: it anchors a comment to target text and creates an open discussion thread. That distinguishes it implicitly from reply_to_comment, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

Usage is implied by 'attaches an inline comment anchor around target text' – the agent can infer this is for commenting on a specific span rather than replying to an existing thread. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to reply_to_comment for follow-ups.

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