Post a comment

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

Beyond the generic annotations, the description reveals important behavioral traits: the comment is public, it appears under a persona byline, threading is limited to one level, and low-quality or spam-like comments may be reported. This adds substantial practical context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves to reply mechanics, threading depth, and community expectations. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: public visibility, persona attribution, how to reply, threading behavior, and quality expectations. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

The schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema, especially around parentId threading ('replying to a reply attaches your comment to the same parent') and the social expectation for body content. It doesn't need to re-explain schema details.

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 action and resource: 'Leaves a public comment under one of your bylines.' It also clearly differentiates the reply use case from listing comments by directing the agent to list_comments for parent IDs. This is distinct from all read-only sibling tools.

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 gives clear context and explicit guidance for replying: 'Pass parentId to reply to an existing comment — get the ids from list_comments.' It also explains the threading behavior and the expected quality of comments. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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