add_customer_comment

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. It only labels the tool as a '[mutation]' but fails to describe any side effects, permissions required, or constraints (e.g., comment length limit, impact on existing comments). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise: a single, front-loaded sentence with a '[mutation]' tag. Every word contributes to the purpose. There is no fluff, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters (many optional), the description does not explain why unrelated fields like query, limit, or tag data appear. It lacks any output schema or behavioral details. Given the complexity and numerous sibling tools, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 input schema has full (100%) description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema; it only states the tool's purpose. The presence of seemingly unrelated parameters (query, limit, tag_name, etc.) is not addressed, but schema descriptions already cover them.

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 explicitly states the action ('Anadir comentario') and the resource ('a cliente'), specifying it's an internal comment added to a customer's file. The tag '[mutation]' further clarifies the operation type. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_customer_tag or add_email_note.

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 implies the tool should be used to add internal comments to customer profiles, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., add_email_note, get_customer_comments), nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for usage.

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