add_comment

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses auto-backup rotation semantics, atomic validated saves, and the hard refusal for documents open in Word. This goes beyond a simple 'adds a comment' and gives the agent meaningful behavioral expectations.

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?

Three sentences contain no filler: the core action, backup behavior, and critical document-open constraint are each stated. The structure front-loads the most important information and earns every sentence.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, and the description covers backup and Word-open constraints well. However, it does not explain how anchor_text and occurrence interact or what constitutes a text range, leaving an agent to infer key invocation semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains backup=False semantics. 'anchor_text' and 'text range' are loosely connected, but 'occurrence', 'file_path', 'author', and 'text' are left entirely to parameter names. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool with required arguments.

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 ('Add a comment'), the resource ('a text range'), and the threading behavior ('threaded-comment infrastructure created as needed'). This distinguishes it from siblings like reply_to_comment, resolve_comment, and delete_comment, even without naming them explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. The phrase 'threaded-comment infrastructure created as needed' implies use for adding new comments, and 'Refuses documents open in Word' is a useful constraint, but the agent is not told to prefer reply_to_comment for existing threads or when to avoid this tool.

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