comments

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, implying write operations, but the description adds no further behavioral details such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a write tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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, using bullet-style formatting to list actions and parameters. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded, with no wasted 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (three actions, five parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core usage scenarios. It could mention listed comments format or errors but 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds value by explaining parameter relationships (e.g., 'page_id for new discussion, discussion_id for reply' for create), exceeding baseline expectations.

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 'Manage page comments' as the core purpose and enumerates specific actions (list, get, create) with required parameters, clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings like 'blocks' or 'pages'.

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 usage context for each action (e.g., list requires page_id, create requires content with page_id or discussion_id), but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools like 'pages' or 'file_uploads'.

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