Create Comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe, non-destructive write operation, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds the HTML formatting capability as a behavioral feature, which is genuinely useful. However, it does not disclose what happens on success (e.g., whether the comment object is returned), whether the operation is idempotent, or any authentication/permission requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 efficiently structured: the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the HTML formatting detail, then the usage context. Every sentence earns its place. Minor deduction because 'Use this to provide feedback or updates on cards' is somewhat redundant with 'Add a new comment,' which already implies feedback conveyance. Otherwise, no waste.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the combination of a rich schema (100% param coverage, mutual-exclusivity guidance for card_id/card_number, examples) and annotations (safe mutation) covers most operational needs. The description adds the HTML formatting behavior and the intended use case. The only gap is the absence of expected return behavior on success, but the schema carries most of the contextual weight here.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description itself says nothing about parameters. The parameter descriptions in the schema are excellent: body lists all supported HTML tags, card_id explains the numeric ID with an example, card_number differentiates from card_id, and account_slug explains how to obtain valid values. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a new comment to a card.' The word 'new' semantically differentiates it from siblings like fizzy_update_comment, fizzy_delete_comment, fizzy_get_comment, and fizzy_get_card_comments without needing to open any of their schemas. The use case ('provide feedback or updates on cards') reinforces the 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 clear usage context: 'Use this to provide feedback or updates on cards.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use update_comment to modify an existing comment' or 'use get_card_comments to read existing comments'), so the agent must infer sibling differentiation from names alone.

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