docx.comments_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Add a comment' without mentioning that this mutates the document, indicates whether it returns a value, or describes any error conditions. This is a critical omission for a modification operation.

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential operational details and does not use its brevity to provide value; the single sentence offers no information beyond what the tool name already implies.

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?

The description is severely incomplete for a mutating tool. It does not disclose that the operation modifies the document, whether the document must be open, or what the return value is. An agent receive no indication of side effects, preconditions, or postconditions, making it inadequate even for a simple 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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (text, docId, author) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it does not enhance the schema. The baseline of 3 applies due to the high schema description coverage.

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 verb 'add' and the resource 'comment', making it evident the tool performs an addition operation on comments. It is distinguishable from sibling operations like comments_list and comments_delete. However, it lacks any context about where the comment is added or any prerequisites, so it only barely exceeds a restatement of the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives exist. It does not mention any prerequisites such as the document being open or saved, nor does it reference the sibling comment tools.

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