Create Comment

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 add one useful behavioral trait ('Visible to all users'), but it omits other side effects like whether a notification is triggered, whether the expense is modified, or whether there are any 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 two short sentences with no fluff. The action is front-loaded ('Add a comment to an expense'), and the second sentence adds a useful visibility detail without 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, output schema present), so the description is close to adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter clarification, which an agent needs to decide between this tool and its siblings. The visibility detail adds some completeness but does not cover prerequisites or alternatives.

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 should compensate by explaining parameters. It only refers to 'an expense' generically and never names content or expense_id, leaving the agent to infer that content is the comment text and expense_id is the target expense. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but the description adds no explicit mapping.

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') and the resource ('an expense'), and adds the scope 'Visible to all users in the expense.' It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_comments or delete_comment, but the verb makes the distinction evident, so it misses the full 5 for sibling differentiation.

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 given on when to use this tool vs get_comments (to read comments) or delete_comment (to remove them). There are also no prerequisites mentioned, such as requiring the user to be a member of the expense or that the expense must exist.

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