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 states the primary action ('add a comment') but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or whether it returns the created comment. For a simple create operation this is largely sufficient, but it adds no context beyond the action itself.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Efficiently conveys the action and target without any filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description plus schema cover the essentials. It does not mention return value or authentication, but these are less critical for a basic add operation.

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% for both parameters (cardId and comment), and the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters clearly.

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?

States a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('comment'), and target ('Trello card'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools list_comments, update_comment, and delete_comment via the 'add' verb.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, but the verb 'add' and the sibling names (list/update/delete) make the usage context implicitly clear. Lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Delete' clearly communicates a destructive action, but the description does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or what the response looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool is simple and both required parameters are fully documented, making the description adequate for invocation. Gaps remain around the result of deletion, side effects, and return behavior, especially since no annotations or output schema are present.

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%, so cardId and actionId are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter context, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action (Delete) and resource (comment on a Trello card), making it obvious what the tool does. The distinction from sibling tools like list_comments, add_comment, and update_comment is implicit through the operation rather than explicitly named.

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: an agent should choose this tool when a comment on a card needs to be removed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to sibling alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ordering concept ('most recent') and the targeted resource, but it does not describe return shape, whether comments include authors/timestamps, or any error/auth considerations. For a simple read-only list, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain what a caller gets back. It identifies the resource and the required cardId, but omits return value details and any note about comment content. Given the low complexity, it is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 50%: cardId has a description, but limit does not. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, though the limit parameter's constraints (default 50, max 1000, min 1) give reasonable meaning. The word 'most recent' loosely implies the limit applies to recency.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('comments on a Trello card'), and explicitly scopes to 'the most recent' comments. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools add_comment, update_comment, and delete_comment, which all imply mutation.

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 makes it clear this is the read operation for comments, which contrasts with the mutation verbs in sibling names. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of pagination or ordering considerations, and no exclusions or caveats.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool mutates an existing comment, but it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, whether it overwrites the entire comment or appends, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the comment does not exist.

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, focused sentence that clearly communicates the tool's core function. There is no redundant wording or filler, and the essential operation is stated immediately.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is minimal for a mutation tool. It omits important operational context such as expected return behavior, error conditions, and the relationship between actionId and the comment being updated.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description adds little semantic value beyond what the schema states. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('an existing comment on a Trello card'). It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like add_comment and delete_comment without ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_comment or delete_comment. An agent must infer that updating requires an existing comment, and no context is given about prerequisites or typical invocation scenarios.

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