tdx-asset-feed-add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It states the tool adds comments/feed entries but doesn't describe what happens after addition (e.g., whether notifications are sent, if the comment becomes part of the asset's history, or if there are rate limits). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in understanding the tool's behavior and effects.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters documented elsewhere and follows the principle of front-loading the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after the comment is added, what the response looks like, whether there are permission requirements, or how this operation affects the asset. Given the complexity of adding feed entries (which may trigger notifications or workflow changes) and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more context about the tool's effects and limitations.

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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly with clear descriptions of each field's purpose and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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') and target resource ('comment/feed entry to a TDX asset'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from other asset tools like tdx-asset-create or tdx-asset-update by focusing specifically on adding comments/feed entries rather than creating or modifying assets themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tdx-cmdb-feed-add or tdx-ticket-feed-add which serve similar functions for different resource types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit instructions about when this tool is appropriate, prerequisites for use, or comparisons to sibling tools like tdx-cmdb-feed-add (for CMDB items) or tdx-ticket-feed-add (for tickets) that perform similar feed operations on different resource types. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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