BetaSeries: comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It includes HTTP methods (GET/POST/DELETE) and verbs in operation names (retrieve, delete, add), which indicate side effects. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, irreversibility of deletions, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 opens with a concise instruction and then presents a logically grouped list of operations. Each line is necessary and follows a consistent format (operation name, HTTP method, path, params). The length is justified by the multi-operation nature, though plain-text formatting could be enhanced with bullet points for readability.

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 11 operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all operations and parameters comprehensively. It omits return value descriptions and error handling, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke operations correctly. More detail on auth and response formats would improve completeness.

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 description is the definitive source for per-operation parameters, listing each parameter name, optionality (marked with '?'), and a brief semantic explanation (e.g., 'nbpp' = Number of comments per page). This adds significant meaning beyond the generic input schema, which only defines a params object. It falls short of 5 due to missing explicit value types/formats for some parameters.

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 clearly states the tool calls the BetaSeries comments API and enumerates all 11 operations with their HTTP methods and paths. This leaves no doubt about the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., betaseries_movies, betaseries_members) by resource domain.

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 says 'Pick an operation' and provides operation names, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus sibling tools nor offer criteria for choosing among the 11 operations. Usage is implied from operation names (e.g., 'delete-comments-comment') but not explicitly guided.

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