comment_on_interview_variable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a live mutation ('no automatic idempotency key') and states permission requirements, which is critical for a write operation. It also advises reading the interview first, implying state dependencies. Some aspects like return value and visibility of the comment are not disclosed, but the major behavioral traits are covered.

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 three tightly written sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives the permission prerequisite, and the third delivers the risk warning and usage tip. No sentence is wasted, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a non-trivial parameter set, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers permissions, targeting, and idempotency, but it does not state what the API returns, the effect of the comment (e.g., where it becomes visible), or the meaning of the 'profile' parameter. Agents may still need to infer or investigate these details before confidently invoking the tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'variable_name' and 'roster_vector' are the targeting mechanism and that the roster vector is optional, and mentions 'exact interview/variable/roster targeting'. However, the 'profile' parameter is left entirely unexplained, and 'comment' content is not described beyond the obvious, leaving a partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Post') and resource ('question-level comment') with the addressing mechanism ('using a variable name and optional roster vector'). It is clear and concrete, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling 'comment_on_interview_question', relying on the tool name and targeting mechanism for differentiation.

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 provides clear usage context: permission requirements ('Requires fieldwork_write or admin_write permission'), a warning about the live mutation with no idempotency, and a best-practice instruction to read the interview first and use exact targeting. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling comment tool, so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.

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