Post Comment

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

Annotations are thin (only destructiveHint=false), so the description carries most of the disclosure burden. It usefully adds the required permission scope, but says nothing about whether mentions trigger notifications, whether comments are moderated, or what side effects posting has.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the permission caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the action and the permission gate. It is adequate but incomplete: with no output schema, an agent gets no signal about the return value (e.g., the created comment ID) or the behavior of mentions.

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% (text, mentions, content_id all documented in the schema), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, ID format, or semantics for the mentions array or content_id beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Post a discussion comment on a content item'), making it clearly distinguishable from list_comments and delete_comment by the create action. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from sibling comment tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It discloses a prerequisite ('Requires discussion.post permission'), which tells the agent the operation may fail without that scope. However, it gives no when-to-use framing, no exclusions, and never points to alternatives like list_comments or delete_comment, so usage context is only implied.

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