create_comment

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

Annotations already declare the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description need not restate that. It does add two preconditions beyond the annotations — the entry must be accessible and comments must be enabled — but omits auth requirements and failure behavior for this mutation.

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?

A single short sentence with the precondition carrying the load; nothing is redundant. It is efficient, though the terseness is arguably under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 mutation tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no parameter details, the description is too thin — an agent cannot tell what entry_id should look like or what happens on failure. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the interaction contract remains incomplete.

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% for the two required parameters (entry_id, body), so the description carries the full burden and contributes nothing. It never explains the identifier format, that body is the comment text, or the 1–10000 character constraint, so an agent gets no meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Comment on an accessible entry'), so an agent knows this creates a comment rather than an entry, which separates it from siblings like create_entry and create_changelog_entry. It stops short of explicitly naming or differentiating against those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally so.

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?

'if comments are enabled' is a usable gating condition for when the call will succeed, and 'accessible entry' implies a permission precondition. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no guidance on what to do when comments are disabled, leaving usage largely inferred.

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