skool_comment_on_post

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the operation is a public write ('Writes publicly') and advises confirmation, which is a meaningful caution. It also explains the correct format for `post_id` to avoid errors. This goes beyond a simple statement of the action, though it doesn't mention reversibility or other side effects.

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 sentences with no unnecessary words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the parameter clarification and then the behavioral caution. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the critical parameter nuance, and the public write nature. It could optionally mention response format, but that's not essential given no output schema. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must clarify parameters. It explicitly clarifies `post_id` by stating it's the real id (from `skool_list_posts`/`skool_get_post`) and not the slug, which is critical for correct invocation. `content` is not described, but it's self-evident from the name and type. The key parameter semantics are addressed well.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a post.' It also clarifies the ambiguous `post_id` parameter, distinguishing it from the slug, which prevents misuse. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like `skool_create_post` (creating a post) and `skool_send_message` (messaging).

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 provides some usage context: it's for commenting on posts, and it warns 'Writes publicly — confirm first,' implying user consent is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like sending messages or creating posts. Guidance is implied but not fully spelled out.

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