Comment on an action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write nature is known. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — the confirm gate and the fact that there is no server-side dry run — but says nothing about whether comments are editable or deletable, who may post them, or what state changes.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the one behavioral constraint that matters. Nothing is wasted.

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 write tool with a nested body and no output schema, the definition covers the execution gate but leaves the payload semantics (what 'id' identifies, body formatting/limits beyond the schema's maxLength) and the returned preview unexplained. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 50%: confirm and idempotencyKey are already documented in the schema, and the description's confirm note merely restates that. The undocumented 'id' and nested 'body' parameters get no added meaning from the description, though the endpoint path weakly implies id is the approval request id.

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 and resource ('Comment on an action') and even pins the endpoint POST /v1/approvals/{id}/comments, which cleanly separates it from approvals_listComments, approvals_approve and approvals_reject. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives one concrete precondition — the write is not executed unless confirm: true — which is real usage guidance. But there is no guidance on when to comment versus approve/reject, no statement that the action must be pending, and no permission prerequisites.

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