create_comment

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavioral traits: it modifies the document, creates a timestamped backup if output_path is omitted, overrides original, and gives default author. Error handling is detailed. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Errors sections. It is moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose. Minor verbosity could be trimmed, but overall 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 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, return values, error cases, and side effects. It is complete 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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds comprehensive parameter details: path, anchor_text (must exist, unique), comment_text, author (default), output_path (behavior). It also describes return values and errors, adding far more meaning than the bare schema.

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 'Add a comment anchored to specific text in a Word document.' This specifies the action (Add) and resource (comment on text in Word doc), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_reply and create_track_change.

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 error conditions (anchor text not found or not unique) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like create_reply. No direct comparison or context for selection is given.

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