create_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that enumerations are passed through uninterpreted, that the sequence number defaults to the next free one in the CSDB, that output is verified against comment.xsd and BREX, that the response contains xml/fileName/commentCode/verification/fixes[], and that nothing is written unless write is true. It omits overwrite-conflict and allowInvalid semantics, though the schema covers those.

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?

Four dense sentences with the resource identity front-loaded and no filler. The first sentence is long and packs the field list into one clause, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 22-parameter, deeply nested tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (xml, fileName, commentCode, verification, fixes[]) and the write-safety model, which are the two biggest gaps. Missing pieces — directory resolution and invalid-write override — are already documented on the corresponding schema properties.

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 68%, so the schema does most of the work for the 22 parameters. The description adds real meaning for a few — comment type (q/i/r), priority range cp01–cp99, paragraphs, originator/sender, and the seqNumber default — but leaves the majority of parameters (refs, csdbDirs, brexDmRef, responseType, maxFixes) to 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?

States a specific verb and resource — build a comment data module (comment.xsd) — and defines the resource precisely as a remark about data modules, publication modules, DMLs or DDNs. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling build_data_module, so an agent must infer the split from the resource noun rather than from a stated exclusion.

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 conditional guidance is 'Writes only when write is true', which is about mode rather than tool selection. There is no statement of when to prefer this over build_data_module, nor prerequisites such as an existing CSDB or BREX. Usage is implied by the resource description alone.

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