post_review_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns 'This is a mutation — use intentionally' and discloses the reply capability. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it could further elaborate on side effects or permissions.

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 three sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds usage guidance and mutation warning efficiently.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and mutation warning. It doesn't explain return values or prerequisites, but given the schema fully documents parameters, this is adequate for a mutation tool.

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% for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning 'file/line' and 'reply to existing comments', but does not provide per-parameter details beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 ('Post an inline comment'), the target ('on a specific file/line in a Gerrit change'), and the scope ('line-by-line code review comments'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_review, which is for general review 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?

It explicitly instructs to use this for line-by-line code review comments, providing clear context. It also mentions the ability to reply to existing comments, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like post_review for general comments.

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