set_comment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It mentions persistence but lacks details on whether overwrites occur, permission requirements, or side effects. The ability to clear with empty text is noted, but other behavioral traits are missing.

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 short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices essential details. It achieves conciseness at the cost of completeness, making it only adequate.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error states, or what constitutes a valid step. It feels incomplete for practical use.

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%, and the description adds minimal value beyond parameter names: algorithm, step (number), text. No explanation of what the step number represents or constraints on text format.

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 action: set or clear a comment on a step of an algorithm. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the resource (comment on algorithm step) which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 or clearing comments, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like set_decision or set_param. No exclusion criteria or context for selection is provided.

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