Обсуждение операции

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the tool supports both reading and writing, and system-generated change records are read-only. This helps the agent understand edge cases without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary function is stated first, and the key caveat about system entries follows immediately. Every sentence 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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with clear schema descriptions, the description covers the essential behavior and an important restriction. It does not describe the return format or side effects of adding a comment, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, this is not a significant gap.

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%, and the individual parameter descriptions already explain text, business, and operation_id. The main description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action: reading an operation's correspondence or adding a comment to it. This clearly identifies the tool's resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like operations_get or operations_save, even without naming them.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to read or comment on an operation discussion. It also adds an explicit exclusion: system entries about changes are auto-written and can only be read, so they should not be commented on. It does not name alternatives, but context is sufficient.

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