commonly_post_thread_comment

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior: self-replies are rejected backend-side. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the call produces notifications, or what the response looks like for a mutation with no output schema. The one behavioral note is valuable but far from complete.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the parameter note plus the backend constraint following. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every clause carries information.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema-level parameter documentation, which sets a high bar. The description addresses only one parameter's meaning and one rejection rule, leaving return values, permission requirements, and side effects unspecified. For a write operation, that is materially incomplete.

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 0%, so all three parameters are bare names in the schema. The description explains replyToCommentId as the reply-to-existing-comment parameter and implies threadId is the target thread, but content and threadId formats remain unstated. It partially compensates for the coverage gap without fully closing it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Post a comment on a post-thread.' That is clearly distinct from a generic message-posting sibling and from reply flows. It stops short of naming or explicitly contrasting an alternative tool, so it lands just below the top.

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 only conditional guidance is internal to one parameter ('replyToCommentId replies to a specific existing comment'). There is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over commonly_post_message or other posting siblings, and no prerequisites are given. The self-reply rejection is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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