post_event_occurrence_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that event_id references are resolved to UUID, multiple comments per occurrence are supported, and returns the persisted Comment with id and created_at. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or potential side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by relevant details about parameter flexibility, multiple comments, and return value. No redundant information.

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 complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description explains event_id well and mentions return value. However, it fails to describe the expected format or constraints for required parameters date and body, and the optional is_private flag, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. Only event_id is explained in detail (accepts multiple reference forms and resolved to UUID). The parameters date, body, and is_private lack any semantic explanation in the description, leaving them unclear.

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 clearly states 'Append a new comment to an event occurrence (date),' specifying the verb (append) and resource (comment to event occurrence). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_event_occurrence_comment and patch_event_occurrence_comment.

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?

While the purpose implies when to use the tool (to add a new comment), it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like patch_event_occurrence_comment for editing or delete_event_occurrence_comment for removal. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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