add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic function, omitting critical details such as whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, potential side effects (e.g., notifications), or error handling. The one-sentence description lacks depth for an agent to anticipate consequences.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and target, containing no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 that this is a write tool with four required parameters and no output schema, the description should provide context about return values (e.g., created comment ID), success criteria, or preconditions. It lacks completeness for safe invocation, such as specifying that the referenced element must exist or what happens if parameters are invalid.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, meaning each parameter's meaning is already documented in the schema (e.g., 'Пространство имён приложения'). The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 action ('Добавить комментарий' - add comment) and the target ('к элементу приложения ELMA365' - to an element of the ELMA365 application). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_comments' which retrieves comments, as this creates one. It is specific about the resource but lacks explicit differentiation from other write tools like 'create_item', though the resource difference is implied.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_comments' or 'create_item'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the element must exist) or conditions under which the tool should not be used. The description solely states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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