add_plan_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that comments persist through all future reads and exports, which is key behavioral info. It does not mention authorization or limits, but for a simple add operation, this is adequate.

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 concise at about 6 lines, front-loaded with the action, and structured with an example, persistence note, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, params, and behavioral impact. It mentions a confirmation message in returns, which suffices. It could mention comment length limits or idempotency, but overall it is complete enough.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining each parameter: plan_id as 'The plan ID', week_number as 'Which week', and comment as 'The comment text (without # prefix)'. While plan_id's description is minimal, the others add value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'YAML comment to a week block', and provides an example. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_plan_run' which adds a run, and 'add_coaching_feedback' which adds feedback.

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 gives context on when to use the tool: to document plan adjustments within the plan itself, with an example. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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