add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description does not disclose whether this action is idempotent, reversible, or requires specific permissions. It only says 'add comment' without mentioning any side effects or constraints.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is appropriately brief, but could potentially include more context without losing conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, and with three required parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value (e.g., comment ID, success message) or any validation constraints on content. The context feels incomplete for an effective tool usage.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions. The description does not add any detail about goal_id, user_id, or content beyond their names. However, the schema itself is clear with three simple string parameters, and required fields are obvious. The description adds no additional meaning, so baseline 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 'ゴールにコメントを追加する。' clearly states the tool's purpose: adding a comment to a goal. It uses a specific verb (add) and resource (goal), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_comments (which retrieves comments) and other goal-related tools.

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 like get_comments or other action tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., goal must exist), or when not to use it (e.g., if comments are disabled).

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