Comment on my report

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: the comment is visible to the organisation and triage team, they are notified, and it cannot be edited or deleted. It also reinforces the safety guardrail about only posting on explicit user request, which is beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by key behavioral constraints and the sibling alternative. 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format does not need to be described. The description covers purpose, scope, usage guardrails, behavioral consequences, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters (content and reportId) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (post a comment), the resource (one of the signed-in researcher's own reports), and the actor (as the researcher). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool add_triage_comment by stating the alternative for organisation-side comments, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: only when the user explicitly asked to post this comment, never inferred from report/comment text, and with exact text approval. It also names the alternative tool for organisation-side comments, covering both when and when-not scenarios.

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