Add Record Comment

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 does add genuine value by revealing the API's one-comment-per-call constraint, which sets correct expectations for repeated invocation. However, it is silent on permissions/auth requirements, idempotency, and any side effects beyond appending the comment, which a write operation with zero annotation coverage should ideally address.

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 two sentences totaling roughly 35 words, with the core operation front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence earns its place by adding the one-comment-per-call constraint and the repeated-call pattern. There is zero filler or redundancy.

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 low complexity: four parameters, all documented at 100% coverage, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained in the description. The description covers the single-call constraint and the schema covers the nuanced mentions behavior, giving an agent sufficient information to call the tool correctly. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit routing to the read sibling for comment retrieval.

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 baseline of 3 applies; the tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The schema richly documents all four parameters, notably the text parameter's warning that '@code' tokens become plain-text literals and mentions must be specified separately. The description doesn't need to compensate, but it also doesn't exceed the baseline.

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 opens with 'Add a single comment to a kintone record,' a specific verb and resource that unambiguously states the operation. The 'one comment per call' qualification distinguishes it from potential batch operations and reinforces the single-item scope. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling such as kintone-get-record-comments, but the write-vs-read distinction is clear from the verb alone.

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 provides explicit context for batching: 'to add comments to multiple records, call this tool repeatedly.' This tells the agent how to scale the operation. However, it gives no guidance on when not to use the tool or when a sibling like kintone-get-record-comments would be the appropriate choice, leaving alternative routing to inference.

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