Create Basecamp Comment

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions, rate limits) beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded key action and scope. No extraneous words. Efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simple creation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and acceptable resources. Could mention that the comment is created and possibly returned, but not required. Lacks guidance on error states or validation.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema are comprehensive (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating 'Add a comment' and listing examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the action ('Add a comment'), the resource ('to any Basecamp resource'), and lists example resource types ('message, todo, card, etc.'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like basecamp_create_message.

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?

While the description identifies the target resources, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., basecamp_update_comment) or state prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid recording_id). No when-not or context exclusions are provided.

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