add_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it clearly discloses two non-obvious behaviors: content is automatically prefixed with a 🌕 signature, and reply_comment_id triggers quote-mode reply without nested threading. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but these are not likely blockers for a simple comment 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds information. The reply_comment_id semantics are compactly placed without excess.

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 low-complexity tool with an output schema, it covers the main action, auto-behavior, and reply mode. The primary missing piece is the meaning/format of review_id and explicit tool-selection guidance, but the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains content (auto-prefix) and reply_comment_id (reply/quote mode), but does not explain review_id, which is required. The title 'Review Id' gives only weak signal, leaving a notable gap.

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 states the action and resource: '在想法下发评论' (post a comment under an idea). It distinguishes from sibling tools by targeting comments rather than reviews/chapters, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 provides a concrete condition for the optional parameter: 'reply_comment_id 非空即回复某条评论' (non-empty means reply to a comment), which is useful. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose add_comment over sibling tools such as add_review or list_comments.

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