Comment on a post

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

Even though annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavior: the comment is published immediately, attributed to the user, visible to everyone, has no draft or preview, and refuses to run without explicit confirmation. This goes beyond the structured hints and gives the agent a clear model of consequences.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what the real-world effect is, and what guard is required. The most important behavioral constraints are 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?

For a simple 5-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: the post, body, optional parent/publication, and required confirmation. It does not describe return values, but there is no output schema, and the immediate public effect is clearly communicated.

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%, and every parameter already has a description. The description adds only the confirmation guard, which is also already stated in the schema's confirm parameter, so it provides no significant extra parameter-level meaning.

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 comment') and the resource ('one of your posts'), and adds important scope by noting it is published immediately and publicly. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like get_post_comments or delete_comment, but the core purpose is 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 implies this tool is for immediate, confirmed public commenting by noting there is no draft or preview and that confirm:true is required. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like create_draft or schedule_note, nor does it mention exclusions such as replying via parent_id.

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