fizzy_comment

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

The description discloses all four actions and their effects, including deletion which is destructive. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers behavior well. It doesn't mention auth needs or rate limits, but returns are described.

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 well-structured with sections for actions and arguments, using markdown for readability. It conveys necessary info without extraneous text, though slightly verbose. Still efficient.

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, the description mentions return types (comment details, list, confirmation), completing the picture. It covers all actions and parameter requirements. Could specify exact JSON fields, but sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by grouping parameters by action and clarifying defaults (e.g., 'Uses session default if omitted' for account_slug). It also specifies markdown format for body, complementing the schema.

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 it manages comments on a card with four actions (create, list, update, delete). The tool name 'fizzy_comment' and its relation to other Fizzy tools (account, boards, etc.) is distinct, providing a specific verb+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?

The description explicitly lists when each action is used and required arguments. While it doesn't contrast with sibling tools, the siblings have different purposes (account, boards, search), so the context is clear. It could mention not to use this tool for other card operations.

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