Comment on a post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and 'Public' merely restates openWorldHint. The genuinely additive piece is 'the user confirms first', which explains the confirmation_token gate and that the action is user-approved. Missing: what happens if the confirmation is omitted, whether comments can be edited or removed afterward, and any rate-limit behavior.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the name. The trailing parenthetical is the one low-value element and could be dropped without loss.

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?

For a public, non-idempotent write operation with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description covers the core action and the confirmation requirement but leaves error handling, the full confirmation handshake, and the meaning of media_id/message to be inferred. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 50%: 'account' and 'confirmation_token' are documented in the schema, while 'media_id' and 'message' are bare. The description partially compensates by framing 'on one of your posts' (scoping media_id to the user's own media) and 'the user confirms first' (explaining the token), but adds nothing about the message content limits or formatting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Add a new top-level comment'), and the word 'top-level' implicitly distinguishes it from the reply_to_comment sibling. The parenthetical '(e.g. a pinned-style note or first comment)' is vague and adds ambiguity rather than precision, and no sibling is named outright.

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?

'Public; the user confirms first.' conveys an important precondition for invoking the tool, which is real usage guidance. However, it never states when to use this versus reply_to_comment or private_reply, and it doesn't explain the two-step confirmation flow (call, then re-call with the token) beyond what the parameter description hints at.

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