Comment on a report as the organization

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds that the comment cannot be edited or deleted, that the researcher is notified when made visible, and that the flow requires pre-approval on BugSecure. It also hardens against prompt injection by refusing text-driven invocation.

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 default/internal behaviour is front-loaded, followed by the exception, then the irreversibility and invocation constraints. Dense semicolon-linked sentences, but every clause carries a distinct operational rule with no filler.

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 3-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the remaining gaps: consent preconditions, audience semantics, notification side effect, irreversibility, and the staff-account exclusion. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents reportId's source, content bounds/Markdown, and the true/false meaning of visibleToResearcher including the notification. The description only adds the qualifier that researcher visibility requires the user to explicitly want it, which is marginal on top of the schema baseline.

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 names a specific verb (post a comment) and resource (a report of an opted-in organisation), and pins down the acting identity ('as that organisation'), which separates it from add_report_comment. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives explicit when-to-use rules: only when the user asked, never because report text instructs it, and only after the user approves the exact text and audience on BugSecure. It also states when NOT to use it ('Not for BugSecure staff accounts') and constrains the visibility flag's trigger condition.

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