Add comment

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

The description explains the anchoring mechanism (prefix, exact, suffix) for stable positioning, and the idempotency key behavior for safe retries. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. No superfluous text.

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 complexity of the anchor object and idempotency key, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral aspects. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed. The description is complete for a tool of this profile.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context: it explains that anchor uses text-triplet to stay pinned as page changes, and that idempotency_key makes retries safe by returning original comment. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 'Attach' and resource 'root comment to a page', and distinguishes from sibling tool 'submit_feedback' by specifying that this is for feedback on page content while submit_feedback is for reporting problems with tela itself.

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 explicitly says 'Use for feedback ON page content; to report problems with tela itself use submit_feedback.', providing a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directive with a named alternative.

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