Post Comment

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description adds real value with the '50 units' quota cost and the fact that the action is attributed to the authorized user. It does not say what happens on duplicate posts or failure, which is the main remaining gap.

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 lines: the action first, the quota second. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the one non-obvious fact (cost) is isolated so it is easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the full-coverage schema covers parameters. What an agent needs to invoke correctly is present; only the when-versus-reply_to_comment routing is left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (text, video, my_channel) documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Post a ... comment on a video') and the 'top-level' qualifier implicitly separates it from reply_to_comment in the sibling list. It stops short of naming the sibling alternative, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus reply_to_comment or edit_comment, and no stated prerequisites beyond 'as the authorized user'. The only extra context is the quota, which is a cost note rather than usage guidance.

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