Comment on a review or list (public)

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

Although annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds crucial context beyond that: the comment is public, not quietly undoable, and requires a confirmation preview. This explains the two-call mutation flow and the risk involved, significantly improving the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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, both necessary. The first sentence states the purpose and visibility; the second explains the confirmation process. No redundant words, no repetition of schema details, and the front-loading is ideal.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: visibility, irreversibility, and the two-step confirmation. The annotations and schema already provide safety hints and parameter details. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool safely, including the critical preview step.

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 low (25%), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the 'target' parameter ('on someone's review or list') and explains the 'confirmation_token' workflow ('call once without a token... then call again with the token'). However, it adds little for 'body' and 'target_id', whose semantics are inferable from names and schema constraints. Overall, it compensates partially.

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 the action: 'Post a PUBLIC comment on someone's review or list, under your username.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the public nature distinguishes it from related tools like like_review or delete_comment. It fully answers what the tool does.

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 description provides explicit usage steps: call once without a token to preview, then call again with the token after user agreement. This is strong practical guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the two-step confirmation is a clear workflow that overcomes the absence of alternative guidance.

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