task_add_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires user confirmation ('Требует подтверждения пользователя') and notes the destination behavior difference on old portals. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate an interactive confirmation step.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the confirmation requirement is stated clearly. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with a full output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, destination, and the confirmation requirement. The only minor gap is not explicitly routing away from crm_add_comment, but the sibling list and tool name make that distinction reasonably 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 both parameters (id and text). 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 ('написать' = write) and resource ('комментарий к задаче' = comment to a task), and clarifies the destination (task chat or comments on old portals). It is clear, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from the sibling crm_add_comment, which is for CRM entities rather than tasks.

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 when to use it: when you need to add a comment to a task. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like crm_add_comment for CRM objects. The context signals and sibling list provide some differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit routing guidance.

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