phabricator_blog_post_add_comment

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, omitting details like whether the comment is appended or replaces existing comments, if authentication is required, or if there are side effects. The lack of transparency could lead to misuse.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description is barely adequate. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or any post-action context, leaving gaps that an agent might need to infer.

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% with descriptions for both parameters ('Post PHID or ID' and 'Comment text (supports Remarkup)'). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding value.

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 'Add a comment to a Phame blog post' clearly states the action (add comment), the resource (Phame blog post), and is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like phabricator_task_add_comment or phabricator_document_add_comment. The name reinforces the purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like phabricator_revision_inline_comment or phabricator_task_add_comment. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or why one would choose this over other comment tools.

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