tc_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes HTTP methods (GET, POST, PATCH, DELETE) which imply read/write/destructive behaviors, but it does not disclose required permissions, rate limits, side effects, or error handling. The description covers some behavioral aspects like path parameter filling but lacks depth.

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 relatively long but well-structured as a list of actions with consistent patterns (action: HTTP method /path — parameter details). The first sentence clearly sets the scope, and the list format aids readability. However, it could be slightly more concise by grouping similar actions.

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 (11 actions, 10 parameters) and no output schema, the description covers all actions and explains parameter mappings. It lacks information on return values or error responses, which would be helpful for completeness. Overall, it provides sufficient context for most usage scenarios.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds significant value by explaining how parameters like id, subId, extraId, version, and projectId serve as path placeholders. It also provides examples for query parameters (e.g., objectType=TODO) and describes the body parameter. This enhances understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 that the tool handles Trimble Connect comments on files, folders, todos, views, etc., including attachments and reactions. It lists 11 specific actions with HTTP methods and paths, and instructs to select the endpoint via the 'action' parameter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other resources like todos or views.

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 explicit instructions for each action, including the required parameters and HTTP methods. It explains how path placeholders are filled from input parameters. Although it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, the specific domain of comments makes its usage clear.

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