rednote_post_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explicitly discloses that the tool does NOT post and that it queues for human approval, and it names the return value (a queue id). It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether queuing is idempotent, which would take it to a 5.

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?

Three short clipped sentences, each earning its place: action, the key negative constraint, and the return value. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler.

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 simple two-param queue tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it does not do, and what it returns. Minor gaps on auth and approval workflow context remain.

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 the description must compensate, and it only partially does. The required url and text params are never explained in the description, though the tool's narrow purpose makes their roles obvious from names and formats. Baseline 3 given the trivial two-param surface.

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 (Queue), resource (comment on a note), and a crucial scope qualifier (for human approval, does NOT post). This distinguishes it from the actual posting sibling tools like rednote_reply_comment without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Implies usage through 'for human approval. Does NOT post.' but never explicitly says when to choose this over rednote_reply_comment or rednote_open_approval_page. The alternative-path guidance is inferable but not stated.

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