Create 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 tool creates a new comment thread but omits critical details like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its simple function, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature (creating a comment), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to address behavioral risks, response expectations, or error handling, making it incomplete for safe and effective agent use despite the clear schema coverage.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('card_id' as a UUID and 'message' as the comment text). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 action ('Start a new comment thread') and the target resource ('on a card'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'reply_comment' or 'close_comment', which limits its score to 4 instead of 5.

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 such as 'reply_comment' for existing threads or 'close_comment' for ending discussions. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical scenarios, offering only basic functional intent.

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