tp_add_note_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a write operation ('add'), but doesn't mention permissions, side effects on existing comments, or whether the note must exist. It provides only the basic action with no extra context.

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, compact sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential purpose perfectly and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 simple add operation with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it lacks guidance on when to use vs. alternatives (tp_add_workout_comment) and doesn't state what the tool returns (e.g., success message or created comment).

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 100%, so all three parameters (athlete, comment, note_id) are already documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a calendar note.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like tp_add_workout_comment by specifying 'calendar note', and from read-only tools like tp_get_note_comments.

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 implies when to use the tool (when adding a comment to a note), but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It doesn't mention that tp_add_workout_comment is for workouts or that tp_get_note_comments is for retrieval.

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