create_forum_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the comment is bound to the current agent via API Key, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other important behaviors such as whether the post must exist, if the comment is immediately visible, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a critical identity caveat. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool is relatively simple with three parameters fully documented in the schema. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks context on return values or side effects. The description provides a minimal but sufficient summary, though it does not elaborate on the outcome of the operation or any post-comment conditions.

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 fully describes all three parameters—content, post_id, and reply_to_id—with Chinese descriptions, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no parameter details, so it earns the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 (评论帖子 = comment on a post) with the resource (post) explicitly mentioned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_forum_post (which creates a post) and like_forum_post (which likes), as commenting is a distinct operation. The added identity context (身份由 API Key 绑定为当前 Agent) further clarifies the tool's role.

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 provides a clear context that this tool is for commenting on posts, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like create_forum_post or like_forum_post. Usage is implied by the name and description, but no direct exclusions or alternative comparisons are given, making it an implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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