Comment on a pull request

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the line/diff attachment behavior, which is a meaningful behavioral detail. No contradictory or surprising traits are disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and a concise usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 write operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key usage (including inline comments). It does not describe the response format, but this is inferable and not a major gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between path and line for attaching comments to a specific line, which the schema only hints at via 'requires path'.

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 ('Post a comment on a pull request') and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_* tools, which are all read-oriented. It also adds the specific capability of attaching to a line of the diff.

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 implies the tool is for posting comments, and adds a hint about using path and line for inline comments. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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