Post Comment

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 the critical constraint (100-comment cap and rejection on full threads), which is genuinely valuable. However, it does not state success behavior, return contents, or any permission/authorization expectations for a write operation, leaving those gaps uncovered.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the critical cap constraint is isolated in a compact second block. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place, though the structure could be slightly tighter.

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 6-parameter write tool with a full output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavioral edge case (capacity rejection) and routing. The only notable omission is an explicit differentiation from reply_comment, but overall the agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters (including the author enumeration in the schema's own description). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Post a top-level review comment in a thread') and the qualifier 'top-level' explicitly separates it from the sibling reply_comment. An agent can distinguish this from its closest sibling without opening the schema.

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?

Discloses the discussion cap and gives an explicit when-not condition ('Posting into a full thread is rejected') with a named alternative ('conclude with set_status instead'). It does not explicitly contrast with reply_comment, but 'top-level' plus the set_status routing covers the main decision points.

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