create_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond parameter lists, such as auth requirements, idempotency, rate limits, or side effects like what happens if the discussion does not exist.

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 short but essentially duplicates the schema descriptions. While not overly verbose, the bullet points could be omitted since the schema already provides this information. A more concise version would suffice.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basics but lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or typical use cases, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats schema descriptions verbatim without adding meaningful context beyond what is already in the input schema. It does not elaborate on message_json structure beyond required fields.

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 'Adds a comment to a discussion', specifying the verb and resource. Among sibling tools like create_discussion, delete_comment, and update_comment, this tool is uniquely identified as the creation action for 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_discussion, update_comment). There is no mention of prerequisites like having a discussion ID, nor any hints about required prior steps.

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