add_contact_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention side effects, such as notifications, permissions, or whether the comment is created or appended, nor any return behavior. The description essentially repeats the tool name.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it merely restates the tool name without adding any useful structure or information. It is under-specified rather than helpfully concise, especially given the tool's complexity.

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?

Although the schema and output schema are rich, the description is incomplete for an 11-parameter tool. It lacks any context about when to use the tool, its relationship to sibling comment tools, or behavioral expectations. The agent must rely entirely on the schema, which does not explain the tool's role.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters (100% coverage), so the schema already documents parameter meaning. The description itself adds no parameter-related context, but this is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 'Добавить комментарий к контакту' clearly translates to 'Add a comment to a contact', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_contact_comment and add_task_comment by explicitly targeting contacts and the action of adding.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as update_contact_comment or delete_comment. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and context.

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