word_add_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the batch behavior and the anchoring requirement (each comment must have a paraId). However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., whether comments are appended to existing ones), error handling on invalid paraId, or permission requirements, so transparency is only partially adequate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Add') and the key differentiator ('multiple comments', 'in one pass', 'anchored by paraId'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description plus schema is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it. It could mention how to find paraIds, but that is not essential for this tool's core function and is likely covered by sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds little beyond repeating the paraId anchoring concept, which is already present in the schema's comments array item description. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: adding multiple comments in one pass, each anchored to a paragraph by paraId. This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling word_add_comment, which likely handles single comments.

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 phrase 'in one pass' provides clear context for batch operations, implying this tool is intended for adding several comments simultaneously rather than one at a time. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the batching context is sufficient for most AI agents to select it appropriately.

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