moltbook_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add a comment') but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or response format. This leaves 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its simple function.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, low schema coverage (33%), and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, parameter meanings beyond the schema, or what to expect upon success/failure, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 low at 33%, with only 'parent_id' having a description. The tool description doesn't add any parameter details beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, the baseline is 3 since the schema documents the parameters, even if minimally.

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 ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to a post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from potential sibling tools like 'moltbook_post' or 'moltbook_post_create', which might also involve post interactions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'moltbook_post' and 'moltbook_post_create', it's unclear if this is the primary commenting method or if there are specific contexts (e.g., replying vs. top-level comments) that warrant its use over others.

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