add_rhr_comment

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

Beyond the annotations (mutating, non-destructive), the description adds the important fact that the message is visible to the client, which materially affects how an agent should use the tool. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the safety profile is already established by annotations.

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 compact sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the key behavior and uses a parenthetical to anchor the feature area without adding unnecessary words.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient: it states what to do, where, and that the message is client-visible. Nothing needed for a correct invocation is missing.

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 each parameter already has a clear description: id comes from list_rhr_requests, confirm gates execution, and message is the text. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 names the action ('Добавить' / add), the object (message visible to the client), and the location (request history rhr/chat). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_rhr_request or discard_rhr_request and makes the operation immediately understandable.

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 intended use is implied: adding a client-visible message to a request's history. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling RHR tools or when it should not be used. For a simple append-style operation this is acceptable, but not fully explicit.

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