Create a comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of required permissions, Markdown rendering/validation behavior, rate limits, or whether a comment id is returned, so it does not clear the (lower) annotated-tool bar.

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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the action, which is good. The 'Args:' sentence, however, duplicates information the schema already carries at 100% coverage, so it does not fully earn its place.

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 three-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it conveys the action and the reply mechanism. It omits expected outcomes (created comment id, threading behavior) and any permission/error context that an agent would want before calling.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their meanings. The inline 'Args:' list merely restates documentId/text/parentCommentId with no added syntax, format, length, or constraint detail, making this baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a comment to a document'), which clearly distinguishes it from the read-side sibling outline_list_comments. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of a 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 only usage signal is the parenthetical '(optional, to reply)' on parentCommentId, which explains one parameter rather than when to choose this tool. There is no guidance on prerequisites, threading rules, or how this relates to outline_list_comments or outline_create_document.

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