Add comment

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

The description discloses an important behavioral nuance: the mentions array is informational only and does not notify users. This adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false), which already indicate a write operation. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the mention side effect is a valuable transparency addition.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose and a behavioral caveat without filler. The key action and threading instruction are front-loaded, and the mention caveat 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?

The description covers the main behavior, the threading variant, and the mention behavior, which is sufficient for a simple write tool with a well-annotated schema. It does not explicitly state the full return value (e.g., comment ID), but the mention array is addressed and the output schema is absent, so the description carries an acceptable level of 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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little new parameter information—it reiterates the parent_comment_id purpose but does not elaborate on the 'page' format or 'content' semantics beyond the schema.

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 action ('Post a comment on a page') and distinguishes from sibling comment tools by focusing on creation and reply threading. The parent_comment_id instruction clarifies the difference between top-level and threaded comments.

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 clear guidance on using parent_comment_id to reply within a thread, which is the key usage distinction. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., update_comment, delete_comment), but the creation context is evident from the name and description.

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