dooray_add_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 states the action is to 'Add a new comment,' which implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has an output schema (which should cover return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it lacks crucial context like error handling or side effects. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but the description still falls short of being fully complete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (project_id, post_id, content) are documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter names, such as explaining what 'project_id' and 'post_id' refer to or any constraints on 'content.' This fails to compensate for the low 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 action ('Add a new comment') and the target resource ('to a task'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dooray_update_comment' or 'dooray_list_comments', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites (like needing a valid project_id and post_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'dooray_update_comment' for modifying existing comments.

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