post_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, permissions, idempotency, or rate limits. For a write operation, this is insufficient transparency, as the agent remains unaware of potential destructive or restrictive behaviors.

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 a single brief sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. While concise, it could be slightly expanded to include usage guidelines without becoming verbose.

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 the tool's simple structure (3 params, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral and usage context that would fully inform an agent, especially since annotations are absent. For a straightforward tool, it is minimally sufficient.

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%, with each parameter having a Japanese description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further detail about parameters beyond the schema's coverage. The mention of 'replies also OK' hints at parent_id usage but does not explain syntax or constraints, so it adds minimal value.

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 'Post a comment to an article (replies also OK)', specifying the verb and resource. It also notes that replies are supported, which differentiates it from any potential separate reply tool. Among sibling tools, only this one handles comment posting and replies, making its purpose 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?

The description implies that this tool is for posting both top-level comments and replies, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons with siblings (e.g., get_comments for reading) are given. The context is clear but lacks detailed usage direction.

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