create_pull_request_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that content is 'publicly visible' and requires explicit user approval, which is crucial behavioral context. It also explains the three comment modes. It lacks details about errors or auth, but the key public side-effect is clearly stated.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with a critical warning, then a clear purpose, then the mode breakdown. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 8 parameters, 3 modes, and no output schema, the description covers all usage variants and the key approval constraint. It doesn't explain return values or error handling, but the schema covers parameter details and the mode explanations sufficiently address the tool's complexity.

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?

Although the schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, the description adds meaningful semantic grouping: general mode (only content), inline mode (file_path + line with line_type), and reply mode (parent_id). This relational understanding goes beyond what the schema individually provides.

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 tool's function: 'Post a comment on a pull request.' It specifies the resource (pull request comment) and the verb (post/create), and the three modes further clarify exactly what the tool does, distinguishing it from sibling list/get tools.

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 strong usage guidance: 'do NOT call this tool unless the user has explicitly approved the exact comment text' sets a critical precondition, and the three-mode explanation tells when to use different parameter combinations. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives for reading comments.

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