edb_add_comment

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by revealing that comments are stored in-memory (ephemeral) and can be listed. It also explains the return type (confirmation string). Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these by implying a non-destructive, repeatable operation. No contradictions.

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 compact and well-structured. It uses a docstring format with a clear purpose, use-case, parameter details, and return type. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy. Ideal length for quick understanding.

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 additive tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, required inputs, and output. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that comments are not persistent across sessions (though 'in-memory' implies this). The presence of an output schema (confirmation string) is noted. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (address format, comment example). The description restates these but adds a concrete example for the comment ('NOP sled start'). Since schema coverage is effectively 100% (descriptions in properties), the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Add', the resource 'text annotation to an address', and the context 'reverse engineering session'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edb_remove_comment and edb_list_comments by focusing on the creation action. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 context by stating it's useful for documenting analysis findings and mentions the complementary tool edb_list_comments. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if comments need to be persistent) or provide alternatives among siblings like edb_label_address. The guidance is adequate but lacks exclusionary information.

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