add_thread_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('adds a comment') but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether this is a write operation (implied but not explicit), rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, clear sentence in Japanese with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), response format, and usage context, leaving significant gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to invoke it correctly.

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 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions in Japanese), so the schema does most of the work. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format of 'mentions' array or how 'text' is processed), resulting in a baseline score appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 'スレッドにコメントを追加します' (Adds a comment to a thread) clearly states the verb ('adds') and resource ('comment to a thread'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_record_comment' or 'add_thread', which would require specifying the target context more distinctly.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing space/thread IDs), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'add_record_comment', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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