add_rhr_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful context with 'client-visible', flagging that the message is exposed to the client rather than internal-only. It does not explain the confirm requirement or any visibility/permission nuances.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could have used one more clause to cover the confirm gate.

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 simple 3-parameter write tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the core information is present. It is adequate but thin: it omits the confirm prerequisite behavior and any relationship to the other RHR tools, which would help an agent route correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents id, message, and confirm, including that confirm must be true. The description adds only the 'client-visible' qualifier for the message, which is the correct baseline-3 situation where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (Add) and resource (a client-visible message to the request history/chat), which is far more informative than the name alone. The 'rhr/chat' parenthetical ties it to the RHR family. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing it from siblings like create_rhr_request or discard_rhr_request.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the related RHR tools (list_rhr_requests, create_rhr_request, discard_rhr_request), nor any prerequisites. The reader must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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