Link a comment result

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses authorization requirements, a concurrency precondition (expected_revision from comment_read), the side-effect boundary (does not move/resolve the comment), and the fact that passing null removes the association. This is exactly the state-changing transparency an agent needs for a write-like call.

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?

Four short sentences, all load-bearing: action, preconditions, exclusions, null-removal behavior, and a user-intent guard. The main action is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and non-trivial write semantics, the description covers the operation, prerequisites, non-effects, and the removal case. It does not state return/error behavior or whether a previous association gets replaced, but it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in the main flow.

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 documents slug, tenant_id, and share_token, but leaves thread_id, version_id, and expected_revision without descriptions. The description adds decisive semantics for expected_revision (must come from comment_read), for version_id (null removes the association), and for slug/version consistency ('the SAME artifact'). However, thread_id remains undocumented in both schema and description, so this is not a complete 5.

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 names a specific action ('Associate a readable version...'), a target resource (artifact/discussion), and a condition ('after addressing feedback'). The sentence 'Does not move the original comment or resolve it' gives an immediate boundary that helps an agent distinguish it from comment lifecycle siblings without opening the schema.

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 explicitly states when to act ('Only act when the user asks to record the result'), the prerequisites (content edit permission, expected_revision from comment_read), and what it does not do (does not move or resolve the comment). This is clear when/when-not guidance with a direct pointer to a required sibling tool.

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