docmost_add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add a comment' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens on success/failure, if there are rate limits, or how comments are structured in the system. The description is minimal and lacks important 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?

The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a clear purpose in communicating the tool's function.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how it fits within the broader comment system. The minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective agent 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to a page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'docmost_list_comments' or specify what type of comment system this is, but the verb+resource combination is 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'docmost_list_comments' for reading comments or 'docmost_update_page' for modifying page content. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or contextual constraints for adding comments.

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