add_comment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it is too brief. It does not state what happens if the para_id is invalid, whether the tool returns the created comment object (output schema exists but is not mentioned), or any side effects. For a mutation tool, 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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key information. Every word is meaningful and contributes to the purpose.

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 4 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to specify which document the comment belongs to, how to identify the paragraph, or any return value details. An agent would have to rely on the schema alone, which is not documented.

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 adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the purpose of para_id, text, author, or document_handle. The description entirely neglects parameter semantics.

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 anchored to a paragraph' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (comment) with a specific qualifier (anchored to a paragraph). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like reply_to_comment, update_comment, and delete_comment.

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 such as reply_to_comment or update_comment. It does not mention that it creates a new top-level comment thread, nor does it specify prerequisites or conditions like requiring the document to be open.

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