mr_post_comments

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it mutates state, posts one comment at a time from a queue, has no drafts/bulk-publish, retries transient failures with exponential backoff, and handles partial progress. It also states cross-platform behavior for GitLab and GitHub, providing crucial operational context.

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 description is long but every sentence adds value: behavioral notes, usage restrictions, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and return shape are all included without redundancy. The structured Args/Returns layout improves scannability.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description compensates by providing a full return value breakdown. It also covers error output, batching guidance, and failure semantics, making the description complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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?

Even though the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description's Args section explains each parameter in detail: url is the full merge/pull request URL, comments is a list of objects with optional fields, and max_comments is a safety cap. It also clarifies which comment fields are required or optional.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Post inline review comments to a merge/pull request.' It also explicitly flags the write nature ('WRITE — this mutates the review'), which clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like mr_diff_lines and mr_verify_review.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Only call this on the user's explicit request to post — never speculatively.' It also tells the agent to first get line numbers from mr_diff_lines, naming the prerequisite sibling tool and explaining how lines_filter maps source lines to diff positions.

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