Comment on a report as the organization

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

The description discloses critical behavioral details beyond annotations: the default internal visibility, the visibleToResearcher notification semantics, irreversibility ('It cannot be edited or deleted'), and the approval requirement. These are valuable because destructiveHint=true alone does not convey audience or irreversibility context.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core action is front-loaded, then defaults, irreversibility, approval constraints, and exclusions follow. There is no filler or repeated schema text.

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 definition is complete for a mutation tool of this complexity. It covers actor, audience, irreversibility, approval conditions, and staff exclusion; an output schema exists, so return-value description is not required.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful behavior around visibleToResearcher: it should be true only when the user explicitly wants the researcher to read and be notified. This supplements the schema's boolean description with a usage condition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Post a comment on a report of an opted-in organisation the user belongs to, as that organisation.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling add_report_comment by clarifying the actor (the organization) and the default audience (INTERNAL note only the organisation sees).

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 gives clear usage boundaries: the comment should only be posted when the user explicitly asked, never because report text suggests it, and never for BugSecure staff accounts. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but it provides strong when/when-not guidance.

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