paperclip_add_approval_comment

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint: false. The description adds behavioral context: returns the created comment object with fields, and error handling details for 400, 401, 404. No contradiction, and the description enriches understanding beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with sections (main purpose, Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling), each sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists return fields (id, body, authorId, authorType, createdAt). Error handling covers common failures. The tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects), and the description is fully sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds example values and contextual explanations (e.g., approvalId example 'apr_abc123', body example in markdown), going beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 'Post a markdown comment on an approval request' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like paperclip_add_comment (general) and paperclip_resubmit_approval or paperclip_approve (status changes).

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 'Examples' section explicitly states when to use ('adding context to an approval request or responding to board revision feedback') and when not to use ('when you also want to change the approval status'), pointing to alternative tools.

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