mdl_custom_lists_post_comment

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context by indicating authentication needs and that the tool changes data on the external site, which complements the annotations. However, it does not detail what happens on success or failure, rate limits, or confirm whether the action is idempotent, leaving some behavioral aspects unclarified.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and key constraints. Every sentence is relevant and there is no wasted verbiage.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, required fields, no output schema) and the absence of schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It covers authentication and the mutation nature but omits crucial details about parameters, return behavior, and potential errors, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate by providing any information about the four parameters (list_id, message, spoiler, reply_to). It does not explain their meaning, expected format, constraints, or how to use them, leaving the agent with no guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 combination ('post comment') along with the scope ('Custom Lists'), making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool mdl_comments_post, which likely posts comments on other entities, leaving some ambiguity about which tool to use for custom list 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 provides implied guidance by stating 'use only for an explicit user request' and mentions authentication requirements, which gives some context. But it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives information (e.g., no mention of when to use mdl_comments_post instead) and does not outline prerequisites or exclusions beyond the authentication note.

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