Add Comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real side-effect context the annotations cannot: comments are visible to everyone who can see the page, and mentioned users are notified by Docmost. It does not state permission requirements for commenting or what happens on an invalid page id, leaving a small gap.

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, front-loaded with the core action and reply variant, then visibility and mention etiquette. The mention guidance is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every clause carries actionable information, so 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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations present, the description supplies the missing behavioral layer (visibility, notifications, mention placement). Complete enough to call correctly; only authorization/prerequisite context is absent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description genuinely adds meaning: it specifies that mentions are placed at the start of the comment and trigger notifications, and that reply_to_comment_id turns the call into a threaded reply. It does not explain the accepted formats for `page` (id/slug/URL) beyond what the schema already says, but that is already covered.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add a comment to a page") and immediately covers the second mode (reply via reply_to_comment_id), so an agent knows both shapes of the operation. It never names update_comment or list_comments, so the differentiation from sibling tools is left implicit.

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?

"mention someone only when they need to act on it" gives explicit conditional guidance for the optional mention parameter, and the reply_to_comment_id clause tells the agent how to switch into reply mode. There is no stated exclusion (e.g., when to prefer update_comment instead of adding a new one), so it falls short of a 5.

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