Analyze comments

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses that existing stored comment-intelligence is overwritten (clarifying what destructiveHint actually destroys), that comment content is transmitted to an external provider (matching openWorldHint), and that an API key and a >=5 comment minimum are required. This is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then usage routing, then requirements. 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?

Covers action, side effects, auth, thresholds and the alternative; the only soft spot is the vague 'returns the resulting analysis lists' with no output schema to fall back on. Adequate but return shape could be more concrete.

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% and the single 'slug' parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from list_recent_uoinks or search_uoinks. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is acceptable at full coverage but not above baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Analyze a saved capture's comments with Anthropic') and states the exact effect ('replace its stored comment-intelligence section'). This is clearly distinguishable from neighboring tools such as get_playbook_input and find_mentions.

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?

Gives explicit use cases ('refresh themes, mentioned products and disagreements') and an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it: get_playbook_input with comment-mining when the agent wants to analyze local evidence itself. It also states prerequisites (saved Anthropic key, at least five saved comments).

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