Raise a review comment on the paper

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the default is a suggestion requiring human acceptance, and accepted:true is for autonomous mode only. It also adds the nuance that the author loop acts only after human acceptance. This goes beyond the schema's parameter description, which focuses only on the accepted field's mechanics.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes value. It avoids fluff and repeats nothing from the schema. The structure flows from what → how → behavior → usage, which is ideal.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: anchoring to a passage, providing exact quote, default suggestion behavior, and usage for targeted comments. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of role parameter, but that is fully documented in the schema). Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema, particularly for the 'quote' parameter (exact quoted text from compiled paper or source prose) and for 'accepted' (clarifying when to use true vs default). This elevates the score to 4.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Post a review comment anchored to a passage of the paper.' It also adds context ('for a reviewer agent marking up the document') and distinguishes from sibling tools like reply_to_comment and resolve_comment, which serve different purposes.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided in the final sentence: 'Use this to leave many targeted comments rather than one long critique.' The description also implies when this tool is appropriate (reviewer marking up the document) without explicitly naming alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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