comments

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning the tool may mutate data but is not explicitly destructive. The description adds behavioral context by separating read actions (list, get) from a mutation (create) and explaining param relationships, but does not disclose potential side effects or limitations.

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 line breaks and bullet-like formatting to present actions and their required/optional parameters without any extraneous text.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and full parameter descriptions, the description provides sufficient context for the tool's actions and parameter dependencies. It does not elaborate on return values or edge cases, but these are covered by structured fields.

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 all parameters described, but the description adds value by mapping parameters to specific actions (e.g., 'comment_id for get action', 'discussion_id for replies'), clarifying usage beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 'Manage page comments' and enumerates three actions (list, get, create) with required/optional parameters, establishing a specific verb-resource relationship. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pages' or 'users', the tool name 'comments' makes the resource 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 provides basic action-based parameter guidelines (e.g., 'page_id for new discussion, discussion_id for reply') but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, such as when to choose list over get or when create is appropriate.

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