comment_on_interview_question

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

With no annotations present, the description supplies important behavioral facts: this is a write operation, requires fieldwork_write/admin_write, and question_id must follow the OpenAPI format with roster coordinates for roster questions. It does not mention return values or idempotency, but the disclosed permission and formatting details are the most material traits for a comment-posting call.

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?

Three short sentences lead with the action, then the format caveat, then the permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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 simple mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, target, required question_id format, roster edge case, and permissions. The main omissions are an explanation of the profile parameter and an explicit pointer to comment_on_interview_variable, but an agent has enough to construct a valid call.

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 adds real semantics for question_id by specifying the OpenAPI format and roster-coordinate handling, and comment/interview_id are inferable from their names, but the optional profile parameter is left unexplained.

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 active verb 'Post' plus 'question-level comment' names both the action and the resource. By explicitly saying 'question-level,' it also separates this from the sibling comment_on_interview_variable tool.

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 context about the comment type and required permissions but never says when to prefer this tool over comment_on_interview_variable or other comment-related operations. The when-to-use guidance is only implied through the phrase 'question-level.'

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