Add 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful context that the comment is posted under the Page identity and that an image makes it a photo comment, but says nothing about permissions needed, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the primary use case front-loaded and the optional image capability trailing.

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?

With a full output schema, annotations, and 100% parameter description coverage, the remaining burden on the description is small and it meets it. It could go slightly further on Page-default behavior and error conditions, but nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by clarifying that object_id may be either a post or a comment id ('reply to a comment by passing its id'), a semantic distinction the schema's pattern alone does not convey.

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?

Specific verb (comment/reply) plus resource (post or comment) plus the optional photo-comment capability. It clearly distinguishes the two operating modes and would not be confused with create_post or delete_comment, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'reply to a comment by passing its id' implies the two usage modes, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance (e.g., use list_comments to obtain the comment id, or pick this over create_post for engagement). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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