phabricator_blog_post_add_comment

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say who the comment is attributed to, whether edits are allowed, or what validation the post must pass. No annotation contradiction exists, but the description contributes no additional behavioral context.

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 sentence of about ten words with no waste, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but there is no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, this description is adequate to select and invoke the tool. However, it omits the remarkup formatting note and attribution behavior, so it is minimally complete rather than fully explanatory.

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%: the schema documents objectIdentifier (PHID or ID) and comment (supports Remarkup). The description does not supplement these, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Add a comment to a Phame blog post'), letting an agent distinguish it from the sibling comment tools such as phabricator_task_add_comment and phabricator_document_add_comment, which this description implicitly contrasts by naming the blog post resource.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no explicit exclusions. The agent must infer from the name that this is the comment path for blog posts rather than tasks or documents.

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