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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It still adds real value by disclosing the visibility model (everyone who can see the record sees the comment), the return shape ("Returns the new record") and the underlying endpoint POST /comments.

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 filler: the operation, the visibility caveat, the return value and the endpoint, all front-loaded. Nothing could be removed 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 3-required-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The only modest gap is that it does not explain what the returned record contains, but "Returns the new record" is sufficient given there is no output schema.

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% and the entityType enum is self-documenting, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only reinforces the accepted entity kinds (task, file, conversation) and adds nothing about bodyHTML formatting, the 20k limit, or how entityId relates to entityType — 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?

The description leads with a specific verb and resource ("post a comment") and enumerates the three target record types, so the agent knows exactly what the tool creates. The "WRITE:" prefix clearly separates it from the read-side plutio_list_comments sibling, though no alternative is named explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: "visible to everyone who can see that record" hints at the audience/impact, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing task/file/conversation id. The agent must infer that this is the write counterpart to plutio_list_comments.

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