Post one note to several Jots

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world profile, so the description's job is to add beyond that — and it does, disclosing the critical all-or-nothing semantics ('one unknown id and nothing is posted') and cross-thread linking behavior. It still omits permission requirements and any duplicate/limit handling.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and example before the atomicity caveat. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema (return shape need not be described) and safety annotations, the definition covers intent, batch scope, and failure atomicity well. Missing only secondary details such as auth scope and rate/size limits.

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 compensate. 'Linked across every thread it names' and 'one unknown id' hint that comment_ids are thread identifiers and that invalid ids abort the call, but it never names the parameters, explains the message's 5000-char limit, or notes the 1-50 id bounds.

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 (report one spanned action as a single note) on a specific resource (multiple comment threads, linked), which is clearly distinct from single-thread siblings like post_reply. It never names an alternative explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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?

Usage is implied by the example ('resolved 3 comments in PR #204') and the 'spanned several comments' condition, which tells the agent when batching applies. However, no exclusions are stated and no sibling tool is named as the single-thread alternative, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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