Post a comment on an artwork

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the non-obvious gating behavior (user confirmation, phase-1 preview, token-gated phase-2) which is genuine value beyond the flags. It stops short of explaining visibility of posted comments or any rate/permission limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the confirmation mechanics. Dense but every clause carries information; the second sentence is long yet justified by the non-standard two-phase protocol.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important non-obvious behavior (confirmation and the preview/confirmToken return shape) that the agent needs to call it correctly. Minor omissions such as visibility of the comment keep it from a 5.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining when confirmToken applies and that the repeat call must use identical arguments, tying the token parameter to the confirmation flow rather than restating its schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Post a comment on a student's artwork') that is immediately distinguishable from the read-side sibling artsonia_list_comments. An agent can identify the operation without opening any schema.

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 gives concrete invocation context: confirm-first behavior, the client-elicitation path, and the two-step preview/confirmToken fallback. It does not name when NOT to use it or point at alternatives, but for a single-purpose mutation tool the guidance is clear.

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