Add comment

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

Annotations indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond that. It doesn't disclose what happens after adding a comment (e.g., visibility, persistence) or any side effects.

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 a single, short sentence. It is concise without unnecessary words, but is too brief for the tool's complexity.

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 3 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter usage (e.g., timestamp's role), return behavior, or error conditions, making it hard for an agent to use 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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level explanation. For 3 parameters (body, trackId, timestamp), the description does not clarify the meaning or expected format of any parameter.

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 'Add a comment to a track' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_comments' which reads comments. However, it does not specify the type of comment or additional context like public vs private.

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 like 'get_comments' or other mutation tools. No prerequisites or context provided.

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