add_article_comment

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

The description only restates the action ('Add a comment') and does not reveal any behavioral characteristics beyond the annotations. It does not mention that this is a write operation (already indicated by readOnlyHint:false), nor does it add info about error conditions, idempotency nuances, or side effects that the agent wouldn't already know from annotations. The description contributes no new transparency.

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 economical: a single line that states the purpose, followed by an 'Args' list with brief explanations. There is no redundant fill, and the key information is right up front. The structure is clean and easily scannable for an agent.

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 relatively simple tool (three parameters, one optional), the description covers the basics: what action is performed and concrete details about each parameter. However, it omits any mention of authorization requirements, expected response (attention though the output schema exists), or behavior in error cases such as if the article or article ID does not exist. Since this is a write tool, a note about modification permissions would have been ideal context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section provides minimal semantics: article_id is described as 'Article ID or database ID' (suggesting at least a 长度 of the value), text is clearly markdown, and instance is declared optional with a default. While these are additional hints beyond the raw schema, they are thin and do not clarify value formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters, warranting a mid-level score.

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 specifies the action ('Add a comment'), the resource ('Knowledge Base article'), and inherently distinguishes it from its sibling 'add_comment' (which targets different entities like issues). The purpose is unambiguous and the scope is clear, meeting the threshold for a specific verb+resource description.

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 the alternative 'add_comment' or other issue-centric tools. It does not state that this is for knowledge articles only or explicitly exclude issue comments. The lack of any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instruction, including no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the article must exist), leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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