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 behavioral disclosure. It effectively discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'comments created programmatically appear in the 'All Comments' list but may not be visibly anchored in the UI due to Google API limitations.' This adds valuable context beyond basic functionality, though it could mention permissions or error handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose clearly, and the second sentence adds essential behavioral context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it 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 tool's moderate complexity (a write operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and a key behavioral limitation, though it could benefit from mentioning authentication needs or response format, which the output schema may address.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify index formatting or comment text constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Add a comment') and resource ('anchored to a specific text range in the document'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_comment', 'list_comments', 'delete_comment', and 'reply_to_comment'. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 usage context by specifying 'anchored to a specific text range', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reply_to_comment' or general comment management tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving usage guidance at an implied level.

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