todo_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of explaining side effects. It only states the basic add action and gives use-case context; it does not disclose whether the comment is appended, whether it overwrites content, what permissions are needed, or any other behavioral implications. This is thin for a mutation 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 short sentences contain no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is the only addition, making every sentence valuable.

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 simple three-parameter mutation tool, this is adequate: it gives the action and a practical usage scenario, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, it lacks a clear differentiation from todo_update and omits behavioral or authorization context, so it is not fully complete.

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 only 33%: project_id has a rich description, but body and todo_id have none. The description adds partial meaning by indicating body content through handoff examples and by implying todo_id is the target todo, but it does not explicitly define either parameter. It compensates somewhat but not fully.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a todo.' It clearly conveys the core action, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling todo_update tool, even though the comment-vs-update distinction is reasonably inferable.

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 second sentence provides concrete when-to-use context: 'Use for handoffs: changed files, tests run, decisions, remaining risk.' This gives an agent a clear scenario, but no alternatives, exclusions, or 'when not to use' guidance are mentioned.

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