Append a TODO action item to an existing comment in a podcast project by providing the project path, comment ID, and text.
Append an action item TODO to an existing comment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| comment_id | Yes | ||
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('append') without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior. It does not clarify whether the tool mutates the comment's text or adds a separate action item field, nor does it describe the response shape.
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 single-sentence description is highly concise with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse, which slightly reduces the benefit of its brevity, but it is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Given the presence of three required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and any behavioral or error information. The existing output schema mitigates missing return details but does not compensate for absent operational guidance.
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%, yet the description does not explain any of the three parameters. It implies that 'text' is the action item content and 'comment_id' identifies the comment, but does not explicitly define their roles or relationships. This is insufficient for a tool with zero schema documentation.
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 defines a clear verb ('Append') and a specific resource ('an action item TODO to an existing comment'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_comment_tool (creating a new comment) and update_comment_tool (modifying comment content), making its purpose 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or which sibling it replaces. An agent must infer the appropriate use case from the tool's name and the presence of many comment-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.