bilibili_comment_operate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose that page_index and page_size are only valid for get_sub_comments and max page size is 20, but it fails to mention side effects of delete (e.g., irreversible), authentication requirements, or what the operation result contains. The 'Returns: 操作结果' is uninformative.

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 concise with a bulleted argument list and no fluff. However, the Returns line is tautological and the action list is repeated in the argument description, slightly redundant.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain the return format but only says '操作结果' (operation result). It also lacks information on authentication requirements, error handling, and whether delete is limited to own comments. The tool has six actions with different parameter needs, so more context is needed.

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?

The description defines each parameter: oid as object ID with examples, action as operation type, type_ as comment type, and explains page_index/page_size scoping and limits. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though action and type_ descriptions are somewhat generic.

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 clearly states it performs comment operations including like, dislike, delete, and fetching sub-comments. It distinguishes from sibling tools bilibili_comment_get and bilibili_comment_send by covering actions like delete and like.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The action list implies usage, but no exclusions or recommendations are provided. It doesn't mention that for general comment retrieval one should use bilibili_comment_get.

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