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

Annotations only say it is a non-destructive, open-world write. The description goes further, disclosing that @mentioned users receive notifications, that the comment posts under the caller's identity, that per-call confirmation is the default and configurable, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. Those are meaningful side-effect and auth details beyond the annotations, though it does not describe error behavior or visibility/audience limits.

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 core fact is front-loaded, but the content is redundant: '@mentioned users get a notification' appears twice and 'posts a comment on the job thread' restates the opening clause. Several sentences could be merged without losing information.

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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the important blanks: audience impact (notifications to others), identity of the poster, confirmation workflow, and credential requirement. Only pagination/return confirmation is absent, which is minor 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%: the schema already documents 'body' (with the @Name mention convention) and 'job_id' (sourced from list_jobs). The description repeats the @mention idea but adds no new syntax or format constraints, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: posting a comment on a job thread, including that it appears under the caller's name. An agent can distinguish this from read-style siblings like clockshark_get_job or clockshark_list_jobs. It does not name any sibling tool explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a real operating instruction ('confirm with the user before each call') and notes the confirmation default can be switched off, which is useful pre-call context. However, it never contrasts this with alternative ways to communicate about a job, nor states when not to use it, so usage is implied rather than fully scoped.

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