create_comment_trigger

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

Annotations only flag it as destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent; the description adds real substance beyond that: the trigger goes live immediately, is saved paused rather than refused when the live-trigger cap is hit (signalled via created_paused), and a paused trigger stays paused through edits until active: true is sent. It also discloses that creation starts DMing real commenters and that draft mode skips template/button requirements. That is exactly the kind of lifecycle and consequence disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 content is useful but the prose is repetitive and loosely ordered: 'Creates a trigger.' duplicates the first sentence, 'It goes live at once' appears twice in different paragraphs, and the confirm-with-the-user/draft choice is restated near the end. The most consequential fact (goes live immediately and DMs real commenters) is not front-loaded, which weakens scanability for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 19-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational facts: live-vs-paused behavior, the cap fallback, draft mode, and the button option. Remaining gaps (the post_id vs post_url distinction, response_mode interactions) are handled by the schema, so nothing essential is missing, though the pricing/plan gating on tag_id is left entirely to the schema.

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 89%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, and much of the description's parameter talk (buttons optional up to three, draft skips requirements) merely echoes it. The one genuine value-add is the rationale that a reply button's tap opens the conversation so follow-ups can be sent, which helps the agent choose button types. Baseline 3 is appropriate given how thoroughly the schema already explains semantics.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource (create a comment trigger), which cleanly separates it from list_comment_triggers, update_comment_trigger, and simulate_comment siblings. The immediately following 'Creates a trigger.' is a pure restatement that adds nothing, but the core identification 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?

Strong when-to guidance: it says to confirm with the user first because creation starts DMing real commenters, and it explains the draft: true escape hatch for saving an incomplete trigger paused. It also explains when story/live source types are relevant (Instagram-only, never post-scoped). It does not route the agent between this tool and update_comment_trigger or duplicate_comment_trigger, which keeps it 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.