add_lead_comment

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

With annotations offering no safety profile (all hints false), the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this thoroughly: it warns that the operation is not idempotent, explains that a timeout may still have succeeded, and advises checking before retrying to avoid duplicates. It also discloses the visibility constraint and the character limit, which are behavioral traits the schema and annotations do not express.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then constraints, then the retry warning. Every sentence carries essential information, and the non-idempotency warning is placed last where it can be recalled when handling errors. No filler.

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 small write-only tool with a defined output schema, the description is complete: it states what the note is, who sees it, the size limit, the optional context parameter, how to verify existing notes, and how to safely handle timeouts. No critical call-time behavior is left undisclosed.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that leadId refers to a lead of the current team and that recordId provides optional submission context. It also restates the 2000-character cap, reinforcing the schema's maxLength constraint.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Write an internal follow-up note on a lead.' It immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying visibility (team members only, never the respondent) and by naming how to read existing notes via get_lead, which separates it from read operations.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: adding an internal note with team-only visibility, optional record context, and a max length. It explicitly points to get_lead(includeComments: true) as the way to read existing notes, but does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives beyond that reading path, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use guide.

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