add_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 disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the basic action by stating 'Costs 50 quota units', which informs about resource usage and potential rate limits. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects like permissions needed, whether comments are editable, or response format.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise cost note and parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the action, cost, and parameter meanings. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values, but it could improve by mentioning authentication or error handling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'video_id: The video ID to comment on' and 'text: Comment text', explaining their roles beyond the schema's type definitions. This adds meaningful context, though it could include examples or constraints like text length.

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 specific action ('Post a top-level comment') and resource ('on a video'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'reply_to_comment' (which is for replies) and 'delete_comment' (which removes comments). The verb 'post' is precise and the scope 'top-level' clarifies it's not a reply.

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 implies usage by specifying 'top-level comment on a video', which suggests when to use it versus 'reply_to_comment'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like editing comments, and it lacks guidance on prerequisites such as authentication or video accessibility.

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