dooray_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'mention support', it fails to describe critical behaviors: whether operations require specific permissions, if deletions are permanent, rate limits, or what the output looks like (especially since there's no output schema). For a multi-action tool with mutation capabilities, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Manage Dooray task comments') and succinctly lists key features ('get list, create, update, delete comments with mention support'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters supporting multiple CRUD operations) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like authentication needs. For a tool that can delete data, this leaves critical gaps for safe and effective use.

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 already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that 'mentions' are for user IDs and actions include list/create/update/delete, but it doesn't provide additional context like format examples or dependencies between parameters. This meets the baseline for 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Manage Dooray task comments - get list, create, update, delete comments with mention support'. It specifies the verb ('manage') and resource ('Dooray task comments'), and lists the specific actions available. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like dooray_tasks or dooray_search), which prevents a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a task ID), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like dooray_tasks. The agent must infer usage from the action parameter alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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