Add comment

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

The description discloses that comments are root (non-reply) and anchored by a text triplet to stay pinned. It explains idempotency behavior: retries return original comment. Annotations are consistent (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). No contradictions.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first covers the action, anchoring, and idempotency; second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy.

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 complexity (nested anchor object, optional idempotency key, output schema exists), the description covers anchoring mechanics, idempotency, and usage context. Output is covered by output schema, so no gap.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the anchor triplet purpose and idempotency key behavior, going beyond schema descriptions. It also notes the comment is a root comment.

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 tool attaches a root (non-reply) comment to a page with a specific anchoring mechanism. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'submit_feedback', leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explicit usage guidelines: use for feedback on page content, and redirects users to 'submit_feedback' for reporting problems with tela itself. It also explains when to use the idempotency_key for retries.

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