create_api_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the character limit ('max 10,000 characters'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the comment is public/private, if it triggers notifications, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure, comment ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose and key constraint (character limit) with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and a constraint but misses critical context: permissions, response format, error conditions, and how 'threadId' affects behavior. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 already documents all parameters ('apiId', 'content', 'threadId') with basic descriptions. The description adds the character limit for 'content', which provides extra semantic value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., 'threadId' for replies vs. new threads) or format details, keeping it at the baseline.

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 action ('Create a new comment') and target resource ('on an API'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_api_comment' or 'delete_api_comment' beyond the basic verb difference, nor does it mention the 'threadId' parameter for replies, which is a key functional distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing API), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_api_comment' or 'delete_api_comment'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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