Comment on a todo or idea

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It confirms the write operation but omits details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or return values. The description only hints at required fields but does not explain consequences of invalid inputs.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose, then usage context, then key parameter info. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should cover more context, such as what the tool returns (e.g., comment ID, success status), error scenarios, and prerequisites. The current description is adequate only for basic purpose comprehension.

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 low (25%). The description restates that target_kind is 'todo' or 'idea' and agent_id is required, but these are already evident from the schema. It adds no new meaning for agent_id or target_id, and the text parameter's max length is already in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Adds a comment to a Boardroom todo or idea') and distinguishes it from top-level messaging by specifying scope. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance ('Use for discussion that belongs scoped to that item rather than as a top-level Boardroom message'). While it does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is sufficiently clear for an AI to decide.

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