bilibili_comment_send

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns: 发送结果' (send result), which is vague. It does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, rate limits, or error behavior—critical for a write operation.

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 structure is clear with Args and Returns sections, and each parameter gets a succinct description. However, the Returns section ('发送结果') adds no information and could be omitted. Overall it is efficient but not perfectly lean.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (auth, errors, response format) and usage guidance relative to sibling tools. The agent cannot fully predict prerequisites or outcomes.

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 explains every parameter beyond the schema: oid is object ID (video aid/dynamic id/article cv), text is content, type_ is comment type, root is root comment ID, and parent is parent comment ID (usually same as root). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds clarifying context.

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 '发送评论/回复' (send comment/reply), a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes replies from top-level comments via root/parent parameters, and the name differentiates it from sibling tools like comment_get and comment_operate. The intent is unambiguous.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hints are parameter-level ('fill when replying'), not tool-selection context. It does not mention that bilibili_video_send_danmaku or bilibili_session_send are for other communication types, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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