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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that a comment is added, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the comment is appended, whether it modifies in place, any permission requirements, or reversibility). The implicit mutation is not enough.

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, concise sentence that is easy to parse. It is not verbose, but it lacks structural elements like bullet points or examples. It earns its place with minimal waste.

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 tool with a clear schema and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not explain the outcome of the operation or any constraints beyond the schema. Given its simplicity, this is acceptable but could be improved by mentioning the effect (e.g., 'adds a comment to the specified receipt or transaction.')

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already clearly explain 'type', 'comment', 'id_by_customer', and 'api_key'. No compensation is needed.

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 that the tool adds a comment to a receipt or a transaction, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on other operations like create, delete, or list, so it is easily distinguishable.

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 only states what the tool does, without any guidance on when to use it or when not to. No alternatives are mentioned, but for a unique action like commenting, some context about appropriate scenarios would be helpful.

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