Comment On Post

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses precise operational steps: validates text, checks posting limits, records the attempt, and comments via the web composer. It also honestly notes a specific failure mode (cookie-based commenting decommissioned). This is substantial transparency that the annotation alone does not provide.

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 two sentences totaling about 40 words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the second packs operational details without fluff. Every phrase earns its place, and it remains highly readable.

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?

With four parameters, a destructive hint, and an output schema present, the description provides the essential behavioral context: what it does, how it does it, and a known failure condition. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. The tool is well-covered for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage with all four parameters documented (post_id, text, confirm, account_id). The description does not add deeper semantic meaning beyond the schema, apart from possibly reinforcing the 'active vs specified identity' concept, which the schema already captures. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb-resource pair: 'Comment on a post.' It also specifies the identity context (active or specified Facebook identity), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_post, delete_post, or send_message. The title and description align perfectly without ambiguity.

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 first sentence implies the primary use case ('Comment on a post as the active identity'), giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, such as comparing with send_message or create_post. The behavior notes about validation and failure add situational awareness.

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