comment_report_multi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only on every file,' which is the key side-effect disclosure, and also discloses matching semantics, keying behavior, provenance, and collision handling beyond what the input schema shows.

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 four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adding distinct facts: keying, provenance, collision detection, matching precondition, and read-only behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation's purpose, matching semantics, preconditions, and safety profile. The presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return structure. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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. It clarifies that file_paths refers to multiple documents/copies to merge, that they should share draft text, and that merging matches anchored spans verbatim. It does not specify path format, but the single self-descriptive parameter and the strong contextual description make this sufficient.

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 states a specific verb and resource: merge the reviewer matrix across several documents. It also explains the data model (keyed by author and anchored text, per-file provenance, collision detection), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like comment_report and com_merge_documents.

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 provides a concrete usage context (e.g. three committee members' copies of the same draft) and a prerequisite (copies should share draft text, anchored spans match verbatim). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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