Create Inline Comment

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only minor context (e.g., inline_marker_ref origin) but does not mention side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or return value. It fails to enrich beyond the structured annotations.

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 succinct and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 description covers all parameters and purpose but omits the return value of the created comment, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a create operation with no output schema, return behavior is a meaningful gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates thoroughly by explaining each parameter: page_id as the page, body_value as HTML/storage-format, inline_marker_ref with origin, body_representation with allowed values, and resolved meaning. This is essential for correct invocation.

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: 'Create an inline comment anchored to a text selection on a page.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inline_comment, update_inline_comment, or delete_inline_comment.

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 for inline comments via 'anchored to a text selection' but does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., footer comments) or provide clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The context is present but not explicit.

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