blog_commenter

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral rule beyond annotations – requiring user validation of the text – but says nothing about effects, errors, or return behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted text; the core action leads. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the parameter gaps.

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 write tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits how to obtain blog_id/billet_id and any error or confirmation details. The 50% parameter coverage gap is not compensated.

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 only 50%: 'texte' and 'en_reponse_a' are documented, but blog_id and billet_id have no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving the two identifier parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Publie un commentaire sous un billet de blog' (publishes a comment under a blog post). This distinguishes it from siblings like blog_supprimer_commentaire and blog_commentaires, though it does not explicitly name them or clarify against actualites_commenter.

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?

'Faire valider le texte par l'utilisateur' gives a workflow instruction (get user approval before publishing) but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives relative to sibling comment tools. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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