Add Comment

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns that existing comments are replaced and defines the author default (env var or 'Author'). It also states the return type. This is strong transparency for a simple mutation tool, though it omits potential error cases or permission requirements.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose line, a behavioral note, and a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting is scannable. No fluff or repetition.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers all necessary information: parameter meanings, defaults, replacement behavior, and return type. Nothing essential is missing for a correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It explains all five parameters with meanings, defaults, and examples (e.g., 'A1-style single-cell reference'). It also clarifies that text is effectively required, overriding the schema's default of empty string. This is exactly the level of detail an agent needs.

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: 'Add a comment (note) to a cell in an open workbook.' It also notes that it replaces any existing comment, distinguishing it from get_comments and delete_comment. The verb and resource are specific, and the replacement behavior adds a differentiating detail.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to attach a comment to a cell) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_comments or delete_comment. There is no 'use X instead' guidance, so the agent must infer the exact selection criteria from the tool name and purpose.

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