post_review_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that a comment is posted (implying a write operation) but does not mention whether it is published or draft, side effects like notifications, permission requirements, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and target. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word contributes to the core meaning. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a clear purpose.

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 the tool has 7 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be considered complete. It omits important behavioral context, return behavior, and any relationship to sibling tools like post_draft_comment. A more capable description would clarify the difference between posting a review comment and a draft comment, and what happens after posting.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly map any parameters. It hints at 'specific line', 'file', and 'CL', which faintly suggests line_number, file_path, and change_id, but it fails to clarify the role of message, labels, unresolved, or gerrit_base_url. Parameter meaning is almost entirely left to the schema, which itself lacks descriptions.

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 ('posts') and resource ('review comment on a specific line of a file in a CL'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like post_draft_comment or list_change_comments. It is immediately obvious what action the tool performs and on what target.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It only states the core action, leaving the agent to infer context. No explicit or implied usage direction beyond the action itself.

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