Comment on Post

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint, indicating side effects and potential for destructive actions. The description adds valuable context beyond these annotations: it explains that the tool navigates to the post first and that the comment is only posted when confirm_post is True, acting as a safety mechanism. It also discloses the return format, providing additional transparency.

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose is followed by a process note and an Args/Returns list. Each component adds necessary information, such as the confirm_post requirement and return structure. It is not overly verbose, though the process sentence and the ctx argument could be trimmed for more conciseness.

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 tool's purpose, the key behavioral requirement (confirm_post), all three schema parameters with explanations, and the return value structure. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites like authentication, but these are not critical for a straightforward comment-posting tool. Given the annotations and sibling context, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema provides zero description coverage, leaving parameter meanings entirely to the description. The Args section explicitly explains each parameter: post_url with an Instagram URL example, comment as the text, and confirm_post as a mandatory True value to trigger posting. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and goes beyond the parameter names.

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 'Post a comment on a post,' a specific action on a specific resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like like_post or save_post, as commenting is a distinct action. The additional phrase 'Navigates to the post and submits the comment' reinforces the tool's purpose.

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 implies use for posting comments on Instagram posts but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides a critical usage condition: 'confirm_post must be True for the comment to be posted,' which tells the agent the flag is required for the action to occur. However, no exclusionary guidance or alternative tool references are given.

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