Validate inline comment target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Dry-run' usefully signals a non-mutating validation operation, which is valuable disclosure. However, it does not explain what happens on an invalid target or what the dry-run result looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: dry-run, inline comment target, path and line range, and current pull request iteration.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this sparse description leaves too much unknown. An agent still lacks key behavioral context about validation outcomes, error behavior, line-range semantics, and iteration handling, so invoking this correctly would require inferring several details.

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 only 56%, and the description adds only the broad concepts 'path and line range' and 'current pull request iteration'. It does not clarify the relationship between startToLine/startFromLine and toLine/fromLine, nor how iterationId relates to the described 'current' iteration, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 uses a specific verb, 'validate', with a clear resource, 'inline comment target', and specifies scope with 'path and line range' against the current pull request iteration. This distinguishes it from mutation-oriented siblings such as create_pull_request_inline_comment. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'Dry-run' clearly frames this as a preflight validation step for an inline comment, giving an agent enough context to select it before creating a comment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the dry-run framing provides clear context.

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