skool_posts_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement ('Requires auth cookies') and the endpoint ('Posts to api2.skool.com'), which is helpful. However, it does not describe side effects, error behavior, or any post-condition beyond the action itself, so it remains moderately transparent.

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 extremely concise, with three short sentences that front-load the main purpose and include essential operational details (auth and endpoint). Every word earns its place, and there is 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?

For a simple mutation tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the auth prerequisite, and the target endpoint. It could mention the response format or edge cases, but given the low complexity, this is largely complete.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not introduce any syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Add a comment to a post' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like skool_posts_create (which creates posts) by focusing on commenting, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context for use: adding a comment to a post. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident given the sibling tool list. A score of 4 reflects the clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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