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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does: it reveals side effects (comments count toward the work's total, enabling popularity sorting) and the anti-spam limit of 10 per target. It does not describe response format or failure modes, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Three focused sentences, each with a distinct job: state the action and prerequisite, explain the side effect, and state the constraint. No filler words or redundant restatements.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential selection criteria, auth requirement, target ambiguity, side effects, and limit. It omits return/error behavior but is otherwise sufficiently complete for a straightforward comment-posting tool.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description partially reinforces parameter meaning by mentioning work versus chapter and the api_key requirement. However, novel_id is left undocumented, and the description adds little semantic detail beyond the schema for body or chapter_number.

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 states a specific verb and resource: posting a comment on a work or chapter. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like write_chapter or rate_novel by naming comment posting specifically.

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?

It gives clear usage context: requires an api_key, targets either a work or a chapter, and imposes a 10-comment limit per identity. There is no alternative comment tool among siblings, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary.

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