create_document_comments

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

With annotations already indicating write, non-idempotent, and open-world behavior, the description adds valuable context: comments are authored by the token's user, 'text/html' is sent unsanitized, retries duplicate comments, and attachment references must name existing document attachments. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every line adds operational value—batching, parent IDs, sanitization, idempotency, and attachment resolution—without redundancy or padding.

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 tool's complexity (batch create, formatting options, attachments) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all critical behavioral and prerequisite information. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to misuse the tool, from idempotency to authentication to attachment handling.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, providing a high baseline. The description enriches this by explaining parent_comment_id should come from list_document_comments and that 'text/html' text is unsanitized, which directly informs parameter usage. It does not fully explain dry_run, but schema coverage already handles that adequately.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Create one or more comments on a document in one request.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_work_item_comments and update_document_comment, and the batch aspect ('in one request') adds further specificity.

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 context on how to use the tool, such as setting parent_comment_id from list_document_comments and resolving attachments via list_document_attachments first. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the resource-specific title and first sentence make the usage domain evident.

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