Comment Update Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important effects: @Name notifies the colleague, the team sees the comment on the update, the update author is notified, and clients see only their own comments. It omits permission requirements, failure modes, and whether comments can later be edited or deleted.

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 front-loaded with the action and key side effects, and every sentence carries relevant information. The consent sentence is slightly awkward and dense, but overall it is compact and appropriately sized.

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 comment-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the write effect, consent precondition, notification behavior, and team/client visibility. It is missing explicit return behavior, error cases, and permission details, but the rich schema descriptions reduce the need to repeat those fields.

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 useful semantics by explaining that writing @Name in the text notifies that colleague and that the update may belong to the user or a colleague. It does not add meaning for the agent or session parameters 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?

It states a specific action and resource: writes a comment on an update, with examples like answering a colleague's question or leaving a note. The resource is distinguishable from nearby tools such as delete_comment and add_note, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.

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 a consent-based precondition ('Only when the person asks for it and agreed on the text') plus example use cases, which implies appropriate usage. However, it does not say when to choose this over alternatives like add_note or edit_update, nor does it give explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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