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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the author (and the replied-to person) receive a notification, that content is publicly visible, that login is required, and that the content must be confirmed with the user before sending. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and auth context annotations cannot convey.

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 bracketed sectioning (【需要登录】/【组合链】/【注意】) front-loads the action and keeps the chaining and safety notes scannable. It is dense but nearly every clause carries distinct information, with only minor overlap against the schema.

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, it covers auth, side effects, visibility, input sourcing, and the confirmation requirement. The only gap is that it does not mention the return value or any rate limits, but nothing essential to correct invocation is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents momentId, content, and replyToCommentId. The description only restates the replyToCommentId meaning and repeats a length rule that actually conflicts with the schema (description says 1-500 chars, schema maxLength is 1000), so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('以用户名义在一条消息圈下评论'), and explains the reply variant via replyToCommentId. An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like like_moment, publish_moment, or delete_my_moment.

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?

Explicitly names the upstream tools to get inputs (list_moments_feed / get_moment for momentId and commentId) and routes the reply-to-interaction case to list_moment_notices first. Prerequisites (login required) and the confirmation step are stated up front.

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