add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool appends to existing comments, requires document to be open, or if there are side effects. The return value is vaguely described as 'Success message or error', lacking specifics.

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 concise: a single line of purpose followed by structured Args and Returns sections. No superfluous words. However, the docstring format with headings is acceptable. It 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 parameters, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return value format, error conditions, and behavioral constraints. An agent would lack enough information to reliably invoke the tool in complex workflows.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the four parameters with brief descriptions, matching the schema. However, it adds limited context (e.g., does not explain that paragraph_index is 0-based or valid range, or constraints on comment_text). It provides minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 (add) and resource (comment to a paragraph). It directly tells what the tool does without ambiguity. Among siblings like add_bookmark or add_heading, this tool is distinct because it handles comments.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use comments vs. footnotes). No prerequisites or context about document state (e.g., must be open) are mentioned.

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