post_draft_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the draft visibility behavior and explains how to create a threaded reply. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, whether existing drafts are overwritten, or any 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?

Three concise sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool with 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It covers core draft behavior but leaves many parameters and return expectations unexplained.

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 12 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only explains in_reply_to. It does not clarify message, line ranges, character positions, suggestion, unresolved, or gerrit_base_url.

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 identifies the action ('Creates'), the object ('draft review comment'), and the location ('specific line of a file in a CL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like post_review_comment by emphasizing 'draft' semantics.

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?

It states the draft is only visible to the author until published, implying it should be used for preparatory comments, and explicitly mentions the in_reply_to parameter for threading. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like post_review_comment or publish_drafts.

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