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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: comments are attributed to the caller ('posted under your name') and are held pending owner approval, which explains the non-immediate, non-idempotent nature of the call. It doesn't clarify why destructiveHint is true or what happens on rejection, but the approval workflow is a meaningful disclosure annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the dual-mode purpose is front-loaded and the approval caveat follows immediately.

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 a mutation tool flagged destructive with no output schema, the description should say what the caller gets back (a pending comment ID?) and whether the comment is visible before approval. The approval statement is a good start but leaves the post-call state ambiguous.

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 three parameters including reply_to_id's default behavior are already documented. The description's mention of 'reply in a comment thread' reinforces reply_to_id's purpose but adds no new format or constraint detail.

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 card on a board, or a reply in a comment thread'), covering both creation modes the schema allows. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling write tools like add_note or edit_comment, 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?

The description implies the two usage modes (new comment card vs. reply) but never states when to choose this over add_note or edit_comment. The only explicit guidance is the approval wait, which is a behavioral note rather than a routing rule.

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