simulate_comment

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining the evaluation order (every trigger in id order), the output shape (first that fires, why each other did not, the linked flow, or the native fallback), and the side-effect guarantee ('nothing is sent and nothing is recorded'). It also discloses a real behavioral gap: opt-out, blocklist and once-per-user rules are not simulated.

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?

Front-loaded with the dry-run framing and the key output behavior, with no filler sentences. It loses a point for redundancy: the no-side-effects guarantee is stated twice ('Nothing is sent and nothing is recorded' and 'Dry run, nothing is sent').

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly: match result, per-trigger failure reasons, linked flow, and native fallback. Combined with the explicit non-simulated rules, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 four parameters are already documented, including the note that post_id is needed for post-scoped triggers. The description reinforces the text/channel/post framing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Simulate a comment') and immediately scopes it as a dry run over a given text, channel and post. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_comment_triggers or get_comment_trigger, which read configuration rather than evaluate a hypothetical comment.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to check a trigger matches before and after changing it,' which tells the agent when to reach for it. It also carves out a limitation (per-person rules are not simulated), though it does not name a specific alternative tool for those cases.

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