db_review_comment

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and the description adds valuable context: 'append-only', writes to 'Mako's local project store', and 'never mutates the live database'. This is clear and helpful, though it could mention whether it can delete or modify existing comments.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise, but could be expanded to cover key parameters without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (13 parameters, 3 enums, 0% schema description coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description covers behavioral transparency well but fails to document parameter semantics, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 explain parameters. It only mentions database object types but does not explain any of the 13 parameters (e.g., projectId, preview, category, severity, tags). The agent must infer meaning from parameter names and enums, which is insufficient.

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 is an 'append-only DB review note tool' for leaving comments on database objects, and explicitly lists supported object types. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it writes only to local store, unlike potential sibling tools that might read or mutate the live database.

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 implies usage for leaving comments on database objects and highlights it never mutates the live database, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like db_review_comments (for reading). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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