create_document_comments

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the tool is not idempotent (retry duplicates), explains HTTP status 201, and notes that text/html is sent without sanitization. Annotations already indicate mutability and non-idempotence, but the description enriches these with concrete behavioral details.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence provides necessary operational detail without fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: creation semantics, parameter usage, and behavioral traits like non-idempotency and text handling. It is complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 context for key parameters: parent_comment_id for replying (linked to list_document_comments), text_format behavior (no sanitization), and author_id defaulting to token's user. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool creates one or more comments on a Polarion document in a single request. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('document comments'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_document_comment or list_document_comments.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool, including details on replying (parent_comment_id), text formats, author_id defaults, and the non-idempotent behavior. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools for similar tasks but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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