Create a comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/safety profile is partly known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the default is a dry-run preview and the write only occurs under an explicit flag or env var, which is not derivable from annotations.

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 tight sentences, zero padding. The endpoint and the safe-default behavior are front-loaded so the agent sees the critical constraint immediately.

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 4-param mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it does and the preview/apply gate. It leaves out what the preview response contains, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents apply, account, mediaId, and message. The description restates the apply semantics and adds the IG_WRITE_MODE fallback, but adds little on the other three parameters; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Post') and resource ('a new top-level comment on a media object'), and even includes the underlying endpoint. The word 'top-level' explicitly separates it from instagram_reply_to_comment, so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Gives clear operating context: the tool previews by default and requires apply:true (or IG_WRITE_MODE=apply) to actually write. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative (reply_to_comment) or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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