Create a new comment on a post

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world write, and the description merely restates that a comment is created. It adds no behavioral context such as permission requirements, rate limits, or who can comment, so it earns little beyond the structured hints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the schema covers parameters well and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is minimally sufficient. It nonetheless omits any usage or prerequisite context that would make the definition self-contained.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the owner-permission note on 'user' and the teamName prerequisite. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: creating a comment on an existing post within an esa team. An agent can distinguish it from esa_create_post or esa_update_comment by resource type, but the description never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts the operation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus esa_update_comment or esa_create_post, and no prerequisites stated in the description (the teamName prerequisite for esa_get_teams lives only in the schema). The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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