create_comment

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) with no destructive or idempotent behavior. The description adds that the comment is page-level (not anchored to text selection), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose success/error details or permission requirements, which are minor given the simplicity.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Add'. It contains no unnecessary words and every element contributes to the purpose.

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 simple create tool with 2 well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and that comments are page-level. A minor gap is that it does not mention the return value, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the convention of creation tools returning the created resource.

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 100%, with both parameters (page_id, markdown) fully described in the schema. The main description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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', the resource 'page-level comment', the context 'to a Docmost page', and the format 'written in Markdown'. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_comment (modify) and get_comments (read).

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 that this tool is for creating new page-level comments, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., update_comment for editing, get_comments for reading). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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