scf_create_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about permission ('any member') and side effects (notifying mentioned users, threading), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose details like immediate visibility, idempotency, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action first, then efficiently adds two key usage notes (mentions and threading). Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple create operation with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it creates, the permission context, and the two special features. It does not mention the return value, but that is not critical for a create tool and no output schema exists. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description largely restates schema details (mentions notify users, parent_comment_id is a reply) without adding new meaning. It meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not enrich parameter understanding further.

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 'Post a comment' and the specific resource types (control, evidence item, task). It also includes a permission note ('any member') and distinguishes from sibling comment tools like list, update, and delete by focusing on creation. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as scf_update_comment or scf_list_comments, but the creation intent is clear. It does provide a specific use case (replying via parent_comment_id) and mention behavior, which implies when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to choose a sibling tool.

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