Comment on a media asset

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

The description states that adding a comment is a mutation (no annotations like readOnlyHint), and it discloses the return value ('Returns the new comment and total count'). Annotations are minimal (no destructiveHint), but the description provides sufficient behavioral context beyond what annotations offer. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and key distinction; the second explains optional parameter and return value. Information is front-loaded and efficiently organized.

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 description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameters, and mentions the return value. Given the tool's moderate complexity and good annotations, it is sufficiently complete. No output schema exists, so the return description is valuable.

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 coverage is 80%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema, especially for parentId (explaining its origin and effect) and threading behavior. It also clarifies body and name. The description meaningfully enhances parameter understanding.

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 threaded comment'), the resource ('gallery asset'), and explicitly distinguishes from 'pin annotations'. The verb 'add' and noun 'comment' are specific, and the mention of 'threaded' and 'distinct from pin annotations' differentiates it from sibling tools like annotate_media and remove_media_comment.

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 explains when to use the parentId parameter (to reply to existing comments) and when to omit it (for top-level comments), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or directly mention alternatives like annotate_media, though the distinction is implied.

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