mdshare

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the conditional optionality of the 'key' parameter based on document storage location, which is crucial behavioral information not captured in 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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states core functionality, second adds optional features, third provides important conditional parameter guidance. No wasted words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about the tool's behavior and parameter conditions. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., comment ID, success status), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the conditional optionality of 'key', but doesn't provide additional semantic context for other parameters like 'anchor_text' or 'parent_id'.

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 specific action ('Post a comment') and resource ('on a document'), with additional functionality ('optionally anchored to specific text' and 'reply to an existing comment'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_comments' (read-only) and 'resolve_comment' (different action).

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 (posting comments with optional anchoring/replying) and includes a specific conditional about the 'key' parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., when to use 'resolve_comment' instead).

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