Add Page Comment

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

Annotations only indicate non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no transparency about side effects, authentication needs, or response format beyond the single verb 'Add'. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 (one sentence) and avoids verbosity. However, it could be slightly more structured by including a brief note on parameter relationships (e.g., slug vs page_id).

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and an output schema, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain the dual identification (slug/page_id) or the reply mechanism (parent_id/thread_id), leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 100%, with each parameter clearly described. The tool description does not add extra context about parameter semantics, but the schema already provides adequate information. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'comment to a Yandex Wiki page', making the action unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like page_append_content (page content) and page_delete (page deletion) by focusing specifically on 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. Sibling tools are listed but no direction is given for when to choose comments over page content manipulation.

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