Comment on document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles the most important trait: it is an explicit 'Write operation' with a preview-then-confirm gate, plus a note that the comment is 'visible in Clio next to the document'. It does not cover auth/permission requirements or error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its effect, followed by the operational constraint. No filler; the only mild inefficiency is the 'token from the preview' phrasing that implies a parameter that isn't defined.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing context — that it is a write with a preview/confirm flow and where the result appears. Remaining gaps (permission needs, behavior of message/document_id, return shape) are secondary for this operation.

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 only 33%: confirm is documented but document_id and message are not. The description implies document_id targets a document and message is the comment text, and it reinforces the confirm semantics, but it doesn't fully compensate for the two undocumented parameters, so this lands at the minimum-viable level.

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?

States a specific verb+resource — 'adds a comment' to a 'document' — and narrows the scope to 'the current version', which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like clio_document_write, clio_document_upload, and clio_document_comment (there is no ambiguity about what operation is performed).

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?

Clearly frames the two-step workflow: 'preview first, then confirm', which tells the agent when this write should be performed and how to stage it. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, and it references a 'token from the preview' that has no matching parameter, adding slight friction.

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