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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds zero behavioral information—no mention of side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or response behavior. For a POST action that creates a resource, the lack of disclosure about what gets created or any mutation semantics is a significant gap.

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 description is extremely brief—a single endpoint string. This is under-specification rather than concise writing. It lacks a proper sentence or bullet structure and does not front-load any useful context. The description could be a few words longer to be genuinely helpful.

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 the tool's complexity (nested objects, 4 parameters, an output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the response contains, how to construct the request body, or any edge cases. An agent would have to rely entirely on the schema and other signals, which are also incomplete.

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 50% (only workspaceId and idempotencyKey have descriptions). The description itself does not explain any parameters, such as the required body object (which likely contains the comment text) or the path postId. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters and adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 is only the raw HTTP endpoint 'POST /v1/posts/{postId}/comments', which states a verb and resource but does not explicitly say 'create a comment on a post'. It adds minimal clarity beyond the tool name and fails to distinguish itself from siblings like get_posts_postId_comments or delete_posts_postId_comments_id. This is closer to a tautology than a clear purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool. There is no context about creating vs. listing vs. deleting comments.

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