Create comment

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the anchor highlights every occurrence of the phrase in the viewer, attribution follows `role`, and the result becomes a normal thread that can be replied to or resolved. It stops short of saying whether duplicate anchors or non-matching phrases are rejected.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then the two anchoring parameters, then the post-creation consequence. Parentheticals carry useful asides rather than filler, though the closing sentence about replying/resolving edges toward extra prose that could be trimmed.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, anchoring semantics, attribution, and the resulting thread lifecycle, which is enough to call it correctly. The one gap is that it never says what comes back (e.g., a comment id), which matters because get_comment and reply_to_comment presumably need one.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description does add real meaning on top — 'exact phrase from the source', the highlight-wherever-it-occurs behavior, and the omit-for-doc-level rule — but it does not clarify what happens when `quoted_text` does not match the source.

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 ('Author a NEW comment on a document') plus its defining scope: anchored to a quoted phrase versus a document-level note. The emphasis on 'NEW' implicitly separates it from reply_to_comment, so an agent can pick it out of the sibling list without opening a schema.

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?

It gives clear situational guidance — use this to leave review feedback at a specific spot as a reviewer — and spells out the branch condition: omit `quoted_text` for a document-level note. What it lacks is an explicit hand-off naming reply_to_comment or create_review as the alternative when the agent is not starting a new thread.

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