Add comment

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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral trait 'Notifies the team', which provides valuable context about side effects beyond what annotations convey.

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 succinct sentence that conveys purpose, usage, and side effect with no wasted words.

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 tool is simple with only 2 required parameters. The description covers the purpose and a key behavioral trait. It does not explain return behavior or error handling, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 input schema has 2 parameters with 50% description coverage (body has description, annotation_id does not). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing annotation_id description.

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 'Add a comment to an annotation’s thread' and provides a specific example use case 'e.g. to record what you changed'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_comments' which only lists, and others like 'update_annotation_status'.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('to record what you changed') and notes it notifies the team, implying side effects. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently clear for a simple tool.

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