add_comment

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

Description discloses that a new comment is created, that @username mentions are supported, that the message is length-capped at 1000 characters, and that a confirmation with the new comment ID is returned. Annotations only indicate it is not read-only, idempotent, or destructive, so this adds genuinely useful behavioral context.

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?

Tightly structured with intro, constraint notes, Args, and Returns. The only minor redundancy is restating @username and max length in both the intro and the message arg, but it is small and keeps each section self-contained.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers both parameters, the mention feature, the length limit, and the return value. No critical information appears missing for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It defines file_id as the numeric file ID to comment on and message as the comment text with max length and @username syntax, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the exact action and object: 'Add a comment to a file.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling comment tools like list_comments, edit_comment, and delete_comment by naming the creation action and the target resource.

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?

Provides actionable constraints: use @username to mention users and maximum message length of 1000 characters. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over edit_comment, delete_comment, or list_comments; usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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