phabricator_revision_inline_comment

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

With no annotations, the description reveals the draft behavior, which is a critical behavioral trait. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or notifications, but the draft disclosure adds value beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences front-load the action and immediately provide the essential context about drafts, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, draft lifecycle, and the need to publish. It could optionally mention the return format or confirmation behavior, but the provided information is sufficient for correct usage.

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%, so the parameters are already well-described in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level guidance, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 identifies the action ('Create an inline comment on a specific line of a Differential diff') and distinguishes it by mentioning the draft-and-publish workflow, which no other sibling tool does.

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?

It explicitly states that the comment is a draft and must be published via phabricator_revision_edit, providing a clear follow-up action. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives.

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