create_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that it creates a comment and returns a comment object. It says nothing about required permissions, whether text supports mentions/markdown, whether notifications are sent, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens when discussion_id is supplied.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by an Args/Returns block; every line corresponds to a parameter or the return. The 'Returns' line is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but the overall structure is tight and readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return value need not be explained (doing so is harmless). But for a write tool with zero annotations, the description should say more about permissions, side effects, and the page_id/discussion_id relationship before an agent could invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does label all three parameters meaningfully (page_id = page to comment on, text = comment content, discussion_id = thread to reply to). However, the semantics are shallow: it does not say how to obtain page_id/discussion_id, what format text accepts, or the interaction between page_id and discussion_id.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a comment on a page or reply to a discussion thread'), and even scopes the two modes of operation. It is clear what the tool does; the only thing keeping it from a 5 is that no sibling tool covers comments, so there is nothing to be explicitly differentiated from.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'or reply to a discussion thread' hints that discussion_id selects reply mode, but the description never states when to include discussion_id versus when to omit it, nor any prerequisites (e.g., permissions on the page). No alternatives are named, which is acceptable here since no sibling does the same thing.

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