comment_on_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is write-oriented ('write'), requires confirmation gate, and returns a structured status. However, it omits details like auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens on error.

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 concise, containing only essential information: purpose, gating, and return. It is front-loaded with meta info. While not verbose, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, gating, and return type. Combined with the schema's parameter descriptions, it provides sufficient context for an agent. No major gaps identified.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description merely restates the confirm gating, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., post_urn format, text length). Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Comment on a post' with the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'react_to_post' and 'create_post' by the action, though no explicit comparison is made. The 'ALPHA, write' prefix adds context.

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 notes the gating requirement ('requires confirm:true'), but does not explicitly advise when to use this tool versus alternatives like reacting or messaging. Usage is implied but not fully guided.

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