penpot_create_comment_thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the coordinate and frame attachment behavior, but does not mention any potential side effects, permission requirements, or limits. The tool appears additive, so a score of 3 reflects adequate but not thorough transparency.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action, followed by parameter clarifications. Efficient and to the point.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, coordinate semantics, and optional frame attachment. It does not describe the response format, but that is acceptable without output schema. Missing minor details like content being the initial comment text, but overall sufficient.

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 add meaning. It explains x, y, and frameId, providing value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain fileId, pageId, or content (though these are partially inferable). The description partly compensates for the low 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?

Clearly states it creates a new comment thread pinned to a canvas position on a page. The verb 'create' and resource 'comment thread' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like penpot_create_comment (single comment) and penpot_list_comment_threads (listing).

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 tells when to use frameId (to attach to a specific frame) and when to omit it (to place on page root), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternative comment-related tools like penpot_create_comment.

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