post_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation ('发布') but lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, side effects, or error behavior. Minimal transparency but no contradictions.

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 extremely concise with a single purpose sentence and two parameter lines. There is no fluff; every element contributes to understanding the tool. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter write tool, the description covers the basic action and arguments. However, it omits potential context like authentication (relevant given the check_cookie sibling), expected response, or error conditions. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: note_id as the target note and comment as the content to publish. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema names and types, though it could benefit from examples or constraints.

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 action ('发布评论' = post a comment) and the target resource ('指定笔记' = specified note). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are primarily read-focused (get_note_comments, home_feed, search_notes) or authentication-related (check_cookie).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as authentication. While the action is implied, there is no explicit when/when-not or contextual advice.

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