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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false): it states the comment is publicly attributed to the user, that it reaches other people, that a confirmation step defaults on and can be disabled per tool, and that the user's Cotlet API key with app access is required. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before a public write.

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 and mode switch, then confirmation and auth in descending priority. Slightly redundant between the opening line and the 'Adds a comment to a post...' sentence, but every sentence still carries usable 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers visibility, confirmation workflow, and auth requirements – the gaps an agent would otherwise have. It omits rate limits and error behavior, which keeps it just short of complete.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates parent_comment_id's reply behavior rather than adding syntax, formats, or constraints; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (comment on a post / reply to a comment) and immediately distinguishes the two modes via parent_comment_id. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like skool_create_post or skool_send_message without opening any 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?

Gives conditional usage: set parent_comment_id to reply under a comment rather than the post, and confirm with the user before each call because it reaches other people. It does not name an alternative sibling (e.g., skool_create_post for new posts), but the when-to-use condition is explicit.

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