rest_post_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation but does not mention authentication requirements, side effects on the Figma file, reversibility, permissions, or response behavior. An agent cannot anticipate what will happen beyond the high-level 'post' action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff beyond the mildly redundant 'via REST API,' which is already implied by the tool name. It is concise and communicates the core action efficiently.

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?

Despite the simple schema and full parameter descriptions, the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral guidance about auth, response format, errors, or what happens when nodeId is omitted. The phrase 'screen or pin' is ambiguous relative to the schema's optional nodeId, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context by framing the message as 'review feedback or design critique,' but it does not meaningfully enrich the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Post a review comment or design critique') and the target is clearly a Figma comment, distinguishing it from read-oriented siblings like rest_get_comments. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

The intended use is implied by the verb 'Post' and the comment-related fields, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rest_get_comments for reading comments or other mutation tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or situational cues beyond the action itself.

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