todo_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the handoff framing but says nothing about whether comments are append-only, editable, or ordered, so it adds modest value beyond the structured hints.

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, action first, elaboration second, with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded before the handoff guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple 3-param write. However, the undocumented body/todo_id semantics leave an agent guessing about comment content constraints and todo_id validity given the 33% schema coverage.

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 33%: only project_id carries a description, while body and todo_id are bare in the schema and wholly unexplained in the description. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not clarify comment length/format or what todo_id must reference.

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+resource ('Add a comment to a todo'), which is clearly distinct from the todo_get/todo_update/todo_complete siblings by action and artifact. It never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context ('Use for handoffs: changed files, tests run, decisions, remaining risk') so an agent knows what content belongs here. It offers no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. todo_update for field changes), keeping it below a 5.

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