Comment on memo

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description carries real burden — and it delivers the key non-obvious behavior: the comment inherits the memo's visibility and space by default. It stops short of covering permissions, failure modes, or repetition semantics for a non-idempotent tool.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the default-behavior caveat second. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical '(and space)' is slightly compressed phrasing that takes a moment to parse.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the definition covers the action and the one non-obvious default. It lacks error/edge behavior and does not enumerate what the enum values mean, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly in the common case.

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 67%, below the high-coverage baseline, and the 'visibility' parameter has an enum with no per-value description. The description compensates by explaining the default inheritance behavior for that parameter, which the schema does not state; memo and content are already well documented in the schema.

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 memo'), which is unambiguous and clearly separable from sibling write tools like create_memo or share_memo. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other tools because no sibling also handles comments, so no differentiation is needed.

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 when the tool applies (you have a memo and want to comment) but never states preconditions, when not to use it, or an alternative. The 'unless you set one' clause gestures at a decision the caller makes but is about parameter defaults, not usage routing.

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