ecamm_post_comment

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the crucial detail that the comment is PUBLIC — i.e., visible to the audience and not retractable from this tool's perspective. The confirm-gate requirement is reinforced, though rate limits, moderation behavior, and failure modes are left unstated.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the public-visibility warning and the confirm requirement both front-loaded where the agent will read them first.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers destination, public exposure, and the safety gate — enough to call it safely. Only post-call behavior (what a dry run returns, error handling) is delegated entirely to the schema.

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 50% schema coverage, the schema already explains 'confirm' as a dry-run gate; the description only echoes that it is required. It adds no meaning for 'text' beyond the schema's minLength constraint.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Post a PUBLIC chat comment') with the destination platforms named (Twitch, YouTube, Facebook Page). It is clearly a writing action targeted at the live broadcast, which distinguishes it in spirit from overlay/listing siblings, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 states a hard prerequisite ('Requires confirm: true') and implies the broadcast must be live, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like ecamm_comment_overlay or any condition under which not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than defined.

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