annotation.set_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It only states the basic mutation action ('set') but omits critical behaviors: whether it overwrites existing comments, whether it's idempotent, authentication needs, or any side effects. Lack of detail hurts agent trust.

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 extremely terse (three words). While concise, it sacrifices essential information. Every sentence should earn its place; this single sentence fails to provide enough context for correct usage, making it under-specified rather than properly concise.

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 3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return behavior, error conditions, or address interpretation. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without risking incorrect usage.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions), yet the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the address type (integer or string), comment encoding, or session_id role. The agent has no semantic guidance for parameter values.

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: 'Set comment at address.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like annotation.get_comment or annotation.add_tag beyond the verb difference, lacking details on scope or behavior.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context like address formats, or scenarios where annotation.set_comment is preferred over set_tag or get_comment. The agent is left without decision support.

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