Publish a comment or reply on a shared material, using parent_id to target the comment being answered; set confirm=true to execute after user authorization.
发表资料评论或回复，最多 1000 字；parent_id 指向被回复评论。confirm=true 执行。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | 确认用户已授权此次操作后设为 true | |
| content | Yes | ||
| parent_id | No | ||
| material_id | Yes | 平台对象 ID，正整数 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavior beyond the schema: a 1000-character limit and the confirm=true execution gate (a two-step authorization pattern). The confirm semantics are partly duplicated in the schema, capping it below 5.
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 compact, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the post/reply distinction and the confirm gate are stated efficiently. Slightly dense but every element earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description completes the picture by explaining reply threading, the length cap, and the confirmation requirement — enough for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 50%, so description must compensate. It does: 'parent_id 指向被回复评论' explains the otherwise-undocumented parent_id, and '最多 1000 字' plus 'confirm=true 执行' clarify content limit and the confirm gate. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 发表资料评论或回复 (post material comment or reply). It also clarifies the comment-vs-reply distinction via parent_id. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like share_list_comments or share_delete_comment, but the creation intent is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied: set parent_id to reply to an existing comment, leave it null for a top-level comment, and set confirm=true to execute. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance or stated prerequisites beyond the confirm gate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.