nexus_create_comment

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that this operation consumes the v2 GraphQL pool rather than the v1 REST rate-limit quota, and it clarifies the return shape, including an error string option. The annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation, and the description's behavior aligns with that. It stops short of detailing auth requirements or potential side effects, but it adds meaningful 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 compact and well-organized: the primary action is front-loaded, the nested-reply condition is stated immediately, and the additional rate-limit and ID-location guidance is separated into a concise paragraph. The Returns section is clearly formatted and every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 3-parameter write operation, the description is largely complete: it covers required parameters, the optional reply_to_id, thread ID discovery, rate-limit behavior, and the response shape. It does not explicitly mention authentication prerequisites or post-creation effects, but those are somewhat covered by annotations and the surrounding API context. Overall, an agent has enough information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that thread IDs are found on mod pages and that forum threads and mod posts have distinct IDs. It also reinforces the reply_to_id behavior ('nested reply when reply_to_id is given'), which is already in the schema but is made more actionable.

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 starts with a specific action and resource: 'Post a comment in a thread via v2 GraphQL.' It immediately clarifies the top-level vs. nested reply distinction, which differentiates this from related comment tools like nexus_edit_comment or nexus_discard_comment. The scope is unambiguous and the tool's identity is clear.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: top-level by default, or a nested reply when reply_to_id is provided. It also provides operational guidance on where to find thread IDs and warns that forum threads and mod posts have distinct thread IDs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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