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

Discloses traits the annotations cannot express: likes/hides are reversible while delete is permanent, delete requires a publish-capable role, hiding/deleting removes the comment from the Inbox, and two distinct refusal paths (dead channel connection needing reconnect; replies unavailable on Free). This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the action set and scope, then ordered preconditions, side effects, failure modes, and the usage trigger. Every sentence carries information, though it runs long as a single dense paragraph rather than being broken into scannable units.

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-required-param mutation with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers reversibility, permissions, side effects, and failure/refusal conditions. Nothing an agent needs to decide or invoke correctly appears to be missing.

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% and every parameter is described there, so the schema carries the load. The description adds only the provenance hint that commentId/postPlatformId come from list_post_comments and that supported actions vary per channel's commentActions, which is useful but not parameter-level semantics beyond baseline.

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?

Names the exact verb set (like, unlike, hide, unhide, delete) plus the resource (a comment on a published post) and the acting identity (the channel the post was published to). An agent can distinguish it from reply_to_comment or update_conversation without opening a schema.

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?

Ends with an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the user wants to like, hide or delete a comment on one of their published posts.' It also routes the agent to list_post_comments for commentActions and IDs, so the alternative source of truth is named.

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