post_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action 'Post a new comment' without disclosing important behavioral details like required permissions, whether the comment is immediately visible, what happens on validation failures, or what response to expect. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential action and target without any wasted words. It is perfectly concise and readable.

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 tool is relatively simple (one action, three params, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose and target locations. However, for a mutating create operation without annotations, it lacks details about return values, errors, or prerequisites. It is adequate but not rich.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter (body supports markdown, spaceId is the space ID, changeRequestId is optional). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Post' with the resource 'new comment' and clearly scopes it to 'a GitBook space or change request'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_comment_reply (replies), update_comment, and delete_comment.

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 clearly implies this is for creating new comments on spaces or change requests, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., using post_comment_reply for replies) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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