comment_on_post

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It does disclose that the action is performed as the authenticated account and that the comment text is 'to publish,' which signals an outward, identity-bound action. However, it does not mention side effects, public visibility, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a short Args section. Every stated sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the input schema beyond the intentionally included param descriptions.

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 simple two-string-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides a sufficient call contract: what it does, who it acts as, and what each parameter means. The main gap is that the login requirement is implied rather than explicitly stated, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 0%, so the per-parameter lines add necessary meaning: post_url is a URL and comment_text is the published text. This is minimal but adequate for two simple string parameters. No format, length, or URL validation details are given.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Leave a comment on a LinkedIn post.' It also states the acting identity clearly. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_post and send_message without requiring the agent to infer intent.

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 phrase 'as your authenticated account' implies a login prerequisite, but the description does not explicitly tell the agent to verify login or route to start_login/check_login_status if needed. It also gives no when-not-to-use guidance, though the comment intent is reasonably clear.

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