Comment on a track

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds useful context by specifying 'as the logged-in user' and the optional timestamp anchoring, but it does not disclose side effects, response behavior, or failure conditions beyond what annotations and schema already imply.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately states the key optional behavior. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema properties.

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 4-parameter write operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the actor, the target resource, the action, and the optional timestamp behavior. The main gap is that it does not hint at the return value or potential errors, but the schema covers the parameters thoroughly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'optionally anchored at a position (timestamp_ms)' merely restates the timestamp parameter's meaning, and the track/body/account parameters are already fully described in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Post a comment on a track' with the actor specified as 'the logged-in user'. It also mentions the optional timestamp anchor, making the tool's exact function clear and distinct from read-oriented siblings like soundcloud_get_track_comments.

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 the use case: use this when the logged-in user wants to comment on a track. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance is present but only implied rather than explicit.

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