wiki_add_inline_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. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as permissions needed, reversibility, or side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the document). The description adds minimal transparency beyond the basic function.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and requirements. No wasted words, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). Still efficient.

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 6 parameters (5 required), no annotations, and an output schema (unexplained), the description is too brief. It lacks details on return value, permissions, or how offsets are calculated. The tool's complexity warrants more context.

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 mentions 'selected_text, start_offset, end_offset' but omits 'doc_id', 'content', and 'anchor_hash'. 'Content' (the comment text) is required but not explained. The description adds little meaning beyond parameter names.

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 '在文档选中文本上添加划词评论' which translates to 'add an inline comment on selected text'. It uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('inline comment on selected text'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'wiki_add_comment' (general comment) and 'wiki_get_inline_comments'.

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 only mentions requirements ('must provide selected text and character offset positions') but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wiki_add_comment'. No explicit guidance on context or exclusions.

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