comment_add

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds valuable context about atomicity and idempotency, instructing the agent to supply an ISO timestamp and keep it identical on retry. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps with retry behavior.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose before the timestamp/retry note. Every sentence adds value, but it could have included a bit more parameter context without becoming verbose. Still, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 nine parameters and zero schema coverage, the description is far from complete. It omits explanations for the identity fields (commentId, operationId), revision control (expectedRevision), the distinction between elementId and pageId, and the semantics of actor. No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what happens on success or failure. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional inference.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It only addresses the createdAt parameter (ISO timestamp, keep identical on retry), leaving the other eight parameters (documentId, text, actor, expectedRevision, operationId, commentId, pageId, elementId) without any explanation. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate all required fields.

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 clearly states the tool adds a comment, either element-anchored or document-level, and emphasizes it is atomic. This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like comments_read, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 for adding comments and mentions the two anchoring modes (element or document), but does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference sibling tools like comments_read for reading. An agent can infer the primary use case, but exclusions and alternative routing are absent.

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