Comment

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that the comment is PUBLIC and that position/reply are optional, but omits key behavioral facts: whether the comment can later be edited, whether `author` must be the authenticated user, and any rate limiting on posting.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the action, the target, and the two optional modes with zero filler. Nothing needs trimming and nothing important is buried.

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 5-parameter write tool with no output schema, the definition should say what comes back (e.g. a comment id) and whether `author` may be any profile or must be the caller's own. Those gaps leave a real risk of a malformed but schema-valid call.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces `position` as seconds and `parent` as a reply target, but both are already described in the schema, and it adds nothing for `comment` (which has no schema description) or the ownership semantics of `author`.

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 and resource ("Posts a public comment on a track") plus the two optional variations (position, reply). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling delete_comment, though it never names that sibling to reinforce the contrast.

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 context (commenting on a track) and implicitly contrasts reply-vs-top-level via the "parent" option, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no prerequisites such as needing a track permalink or authentication.

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