Post PR Comment

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

Annotations already denote destructive write (destructiveHint=true). The description adds that comments can be inline and supports Markdown, providing useful context beyond annotations. 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded purpose, no wasted words. Each sentence adds value.

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 tool with 8 parameters and multiple comment types, the description covers all major use cases. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden. Missing details about permissions or limits, but adequate for typical agent use.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description adds minimal parameter insight beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'supports Markdown' is in schema). It does not elaborate on parameter semantics meaningfully.

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 posts a comment on a pull request and lists three distinct modes: general, reply, inline. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete or get 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 explains when to use each mode (general, reply, inline) by referencing parameters like parent_id, file_path, line. However, it does not explicitly guide when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like update, but the context is clear enough.

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