Adds Comments To A Defect Resource.

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the 100-comment limit, non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), HTTP 201 response, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). However, there is an internal inconsistency: it says company_id and project_id default when omitted yet also lists them as required, which slightly muddies the behavioral clarity.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then follows a logical order: limits, defaults, prerequisites, behavior, errors, required params, and endpoint. It is a bit long but every sentence contributes value; the only redundancy is the 'Required parameters' sentence after already discussing defaults.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers return value (new id, HTTP 201), failure modes, prerequisites, limits, and defaults. This makes it nearly self-sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, with only the minor required/default contradiction detracting slightly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics: default values for company_id/project_id and the need to resolve id via a list tool. However, the contradictory 'Required parameters' line undermines the clarity of parameter usage, preventing a higher score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Adds one or more comments to a defect document.' This clearly distinguishes it from other comment-adding tools for different resources (e.g., transfers, shipments, receipts). The exact endpoint path further reinforces the purpose.

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?

Provides clear context: the tool requires an existing parent defect, and the id should be resolved via the matching list tool first. It also explains defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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