add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool adds a comment and supports replies, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, whether comments are editable/deletable, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Add a comment to a document. Supports replies.') earns its place by stating core functionality and an additional feature efficiently.

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 a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, error handling, or return values. For this complexity level, it should provide more context to be adequately helpful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies parameters for document and text, and hints at 'replies' for parentCommentId, but doesn't explain what each parameter means, their formats, or usage. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond basic inference.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a comment') and resource ('to a document'), with additional functionality indicated ('Supports replies'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_comment' (read) and 'list_document_comments' (list), though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from other comment-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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It mentions 'Supports replies,' which hints at context for threaded comments, but doesn't specify when to use parentCommentId versus not, or contrast with other comment or document tools. The description lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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