create_note_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action but omits side effects (e.g., notifications), permission requirements, error handling for missing notes, or whether it returns the created comment (especially relevant since an output schema exists).

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?

While the description is short (one sentence), it is under-specified. It fails to provide critical context about parameters and behavior. A concise description should still convey essential information; here, it sacrifices utility for brevity.

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 availability of an output schema, the description need not detail return values, but it should cover parameters and usage context. The current description is incomplete: it does not explain the role of each parameter, nor does it provide behavioral context. For a tool with three parameters (one required), this is insufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not mention any of the three parameters ('note_id', 'body', 'fields_json'), leaving their meaning and usage entirely to the schema. The description adds no value over the schema's raw field names.

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 'Add a comment to a note.' uses a specific verb ('Add') and identifies the resource ('comment to a note'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_note' (creates a note) and 'get_note_comment' (reads a comment). The purpose is immediate and 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_note_comment' or 'list_note_comments'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of the note) or scenarios (e.g., adding a comment vs. editing an existing one).

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