add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation ('adds', 'replies') and mentions collaboration aspects, but lacks details about permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. It adds some behavioral context but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and parameters. However, as a mutation tool, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects). It's mostly complete but has minor gaps in transparency.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all 3 parameters: 'document_id' (the document to comment on), 'text' (comment text with markdown support), and 'parent_comment_id' (optional for replies). It adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format details like ID structure.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('adds a comment', 'replies to an existing comment') and resources ('document'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_comment' (reads) or 'list_document_comments' (lists). It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.

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 usage guidelines with a bulleted list of when to use this tool ('provide feedback', 'ask questions', 'reply to another user's comment', 'collaborate'), clearly differentiating it from read-only sibling tools. It gives concrete scenarios without being vague.

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