Add PR comment

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds the behavioral nuance that this is a general comment (not inline), which helps set expectations about the comment's scope. No contradictions.

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 long, with the first sentence front-loading the main purpose and scope, and the second sentence offering a clear alternative. No wasted words.

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 simple nature of the tool, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and alternatives well. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the fact that return values are not critical for a comment-posting tool. Sibling differentiation is strong.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (body, repo, pr_id, workspace) having meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Post') and the resource ('a general comment on a pull request'), explicitly noting it is not tied to a specific file or line. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling add_pr_inline_comment, making purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (general comments) and when not to (inline comments), directing users to add_pr_inline_comment as an alternative. This is exactly the kind of usage guidance expected.

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