set_comment

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

Annotations already declare the tool non-read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description focuses on what annotations can't convey: writes land in the session overlay rather than the binary, and persistence requires save_project. The '? = open question' convention is a genuinely useful behavioral detail. It stops short of explaining overwrite behavior or failure modes.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loading the resource and the non-persistence constraint before routing and workflow details. The telegraphic phrasing ('save_project keeps it') is efficient but slightly clipped, which nudges it below a 5.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are covered: target, non-persistence, alternative tool, dry-run ritual, and persistence step. Only edge cases (overwriting an existing comment, address validity) are unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by adding the '?' prefix convention that governs how the comment string is interpreted, and by restating the dry-run toggle as a workflow invariant. That is meaning beyond the schema text.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (comment an address) and adds crucial scope: it writes to the session overlay, never the binary. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling set_name for the naming case, so an agent needn't read two schemas to choose.

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?

Gives the explicit alternative for the adjacent task ('To name it use set_name') and states the dry-run workflow condition ('Dry run until dry_run=false'). It does not spell out when not to use it (e.g., commenting data vs code, or duplicate comment overwrites), but the routing guidance is clear.

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