Add Comment to Discussion

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

Annotations are provided (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent) and the description correctly indicates a write operation ('Add'). The description adds little beyond the action itself; it neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the behavioral context provided by 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 extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose and a short bulleted list for parameters and returns. Every sentence earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with clear annotations and schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return values (comment ID and timestamp). No critical omissions given the tool's low 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the full burden. It lists all three parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Target sheet ID'). This is functional but minimal; it adds only natural language labels beyond what the schema already defines (types, constraints).

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 explicitly states 'Add a reply comment to an existing discussion on a sheet,' clearly identifying the verb (add), resource (reply comment), and context (existing discussion on a sheet). This distinguishes it from siblings like smartsheet_create_row_discussion (creates new discussion) and smartsheet_delete_comment (deletes 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 that an existing discussion is required, which suggests using create tools first. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to reply vs. create a new discussion), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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