bitrix_add_deal_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses that this is a write operation and that confirm=true is required to execute, which is important behavioral context. But it omits side effects, return behavior, permissions, or failure conditions, so transparency is only partial.

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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the key prerequisite immediately after. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 three-parameter tool, the description plus fully described schema gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly: action, target, and confirmation gate are all clear. It stops short of 5 because there is no output schema and no mention of return behavior, though that is not critical for making a correct call.

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 dealId, text, and confirm are already well documented. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond restating the confirm requirement, so the baseline of 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 states a specific action ('Добавить комментарий') and a specific resource ('timeline сделки'), making the purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes this tool from siblings like bitrix_add_task_message or bitrix_list_deal_comments without needing to open the schema.

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 intended usage is implied by the action and resource: add a comment to a deal timeline. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternative tools for similar operations.

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