add_note_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers important lifecycle context: a hard sunset date (2026-07-08), V1 API sunset cause, no workaround, and removal in v2.0.0. It does not cover auth requirements or response behavior, but the deprecation disclosure is genuinely valuable and non-obvious.

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 critical fact (DEPRECATED) is front-loaded, and every sentence concerns the sunset, which is the dominant concern. There is mild redundancy — the removal/cleanup and the 2026-05 changelog note restate the same idea — but nothing is wasted on irrelevant content.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the deprecation but omits what the tool actually does to a note and what it returns. An agent knows the tool is doomed but must still infer its core effect, leaving a completeness 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 100% and both parameters (noteId, content) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource ("note-comments endpoint", "comment feature") but never states the actual action — that it adds a comment to a note. The entire text is devoted to deprecation, so the core verb+resource purpose is left to inference from the tool name, and no sibling (e.g. create_note, update_note) is contrasted.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not guidance: "Continue using only if comments are critical AND you have a contingency for sunset," plus "No workaround available." It even addresses the alternative (V2 has no equivalent), though it does not route to any concrete sibling tool because none exists.

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