comment_on_post

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 explicitly discloses that the comment is public, published under your name, and that the server offers no way to delete it—critical behavioral traits that inform the agent of irreversibility and visibility.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence adds a crucial caveat about public visibility and non-deletion. No unnecessary words.

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 write tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: the action, the target (own posts), identity ('as you'), public visibility, and irreversibility. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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%, with rich descriptions for both parameters: body clarifies plain text conversion to Substack's format, and post_id references list_posts. The description itself adds no extra param semantics beyond what the schema already provides, consistent with the baseline.

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 ('Post a public comment'), the resource ('one of your posts'), and its nature ('public', 'as you'). It distinguishes itself from read-only comment tools like get_post_comments by specifying it creates a public comment on your own post.

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: use this when you want to post a public comment on your own post, under your identity. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to get_post_comments for reading comments.

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