meta-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Enable or disable' implies a state change, the description fails to disclose whether existing comments remain visible when disabled, required permissions, reversibility, or whether this is a destructive operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core function, though its brevity contributes to the lack of contextual guidance and behavioral details that would be helpful for an agent.

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 simple 2-parameter schema with full coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a mutation tool without annotations, it should ideally disclose that this modifies post settings or mention the effect on existing comments to be fully complete.

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 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are fully documented in the schema itself (media_id and enabled with clear descriptions). The description echoes the boolean nature of the operation but does not add syntax details, example values, or semantic nuances beyond what the schema already 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?

The description uses specific verbs ('Enable or disable') and identifies the resource ('comments on an Instagram media post'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like ig_hide_comment or ig_delete_comment, which manage individual comments rather than the post-level commenting permission.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ig_hide_comment (which hides specific existing comments) or prerequisites such as media ownership requirements. It does not clarify that this controls the ability to add new comments rather than managing existing ones.

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