Add a review 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 discloses that this creates a thread and requires web mode, and the highlighting analogy clarifies scope, but omits failure behavior (e.g., text not found), required permissions, and that it is a mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the environment caveat last. Every element earns its place, though 'opt-in, see README' offloads needed detail to an external document rather than stating it inline.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never describes the result of the operation or error conditions. The 100% schema coverage compensates on inputs, but behavioral completeness remains marginal.

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 the schema fully documents all five parameters including the 'occurrence' disambiguation and the 'project' default. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the file-passage framing, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Start a new review comment thread on a passage of a .tex file') and adds a vivid analogy ('as if highlighting it in the Overleaf editor'). It distinguishes itself from sibling reply_comment by emphasizing 'new thread,' though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

It provides a real constraint ('Web mode only (opt-in, see README)'), which signals an environment prerequisite, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs reply_comment/resolve_comment guidance. Usage must be inferred from the word 'new'.

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