add_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool does not alter document text, requires a specific version source, and rejects stale versions. It does not cover all possible side effects or failure modes, but it gives meaningful behavioral transparency.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying essential information. There is no fluff, and the most important constraints are front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational constraints: anchoring, uniqueness, version sourcing, and non-mutation. It does not describe return values, but for a simple create operation this is a minor gap.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for expected_version ('must come from read_file') and selected_text ('unique'), but path and content are left entirely to the schema. This is partial, not complete, semantic coverage.

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 gives a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('native anchored comment'), and a clear target ('unique selected text'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like reply_comment and resolve_comment by emphasizing that it does not change document text.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite: expected_version must come from read_file, and it warns that stale versions will be refused. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough.

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