comment_on_post

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

Discloses that it's a write operation, defaults to dry_run=true, and is dedup-protected by (post_id, body) hash. Without annotations, this covers key behavioral traits well, though could mention response behavior or error handling.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The most critical information (action, scope, alternatives) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate for purpose and usage but lacks parameter details (especially 'pub') and does not describe the return value or error conditions.

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?

Description does not explain parameters beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning, but only implies the role of post_id and body via dedup, and ignores pub and dry_run entirely.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as adding a new top-level comment (not a reply), with specific verb 'Add' and resource 'top-level comment'. It distinguishes from the propose_reply/confirm_reply flow for replies.

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 states when to use (for top-level comments) and when not (for replies), and names alternative tools (propose_reply, confirm_reply). Also notes the default dry_run behavior.

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