crm_add_comment

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

The description adds a key behavioral trait beyond annotations: 'Требует подтверждения пользователя' (requires user confirmation). This is valuable because annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which don't convey the confirmation requirement. The description also implies a write operation (adding a comment), consistent with readOnlyHint=false. No contradiction.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the critical confirmation requirement. 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?

The tool is simple (3 params, all required, 100% schema coverage, output schema present). The description covers the core action and the confirmation behavior. It doesn't mention return values, but the output schema exists, so that's not required. The only minor gap is not explicitly routing to task_add_comment for task comments, but the entity enum makes the CRM scope clear.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, text, entity). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Добавить' = add) and resource ('комментарий в таймлайн лида, сделки, контакта или компании' = comment to the timeline of a lead, deal, contact, or company). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like crm_create or crm_update by focusing on adding a comment to a timeline. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource and action are specific enough.

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 implies usage context: it is for adding comments to CRM entities, and the entity enum clarifies which object types are valid. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_add_comment (for tasks) or crm_comments (for reading comments). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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