Retry comment

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds only that the target must be pending/failed and that publishing happens immediately, with nothing about what happens on failure, whether retries are rate limited, or whether the comment is re-scheduled versus published immediately.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and qualified by state; nothing is wasted. Terseness here is close to under-specification, but the sentence itself has no filler.

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?

A mutating, open-world tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter needs more: which states are retryable, what the caller gets back, and what failure means. The description supplies basically one fact (target state), leaving key call-time knowledge missing.

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 0% for the single required commentId, so the description carries the burden. It only implies the ID belongs to a pending/failed comment; it states nothing about whether the ID must be in a retryable state, what error occurs otherwise, or the accepted ID format.

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?

"Publish a pending/failed comment now" gives a specific verb (publish) and resource (comment) plus a state qualifier (pending/failed) that separates it from create_comment and update_comment. It does not explicitly name the closest relatives (retry_post, reply_to_inbox_item), so it stops short of a 5.

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 mention of pending/failed comments implies the condition under which to call it, but no alternatives are named and no exclusion is stated (e.g., "use create_comment for a new comment"). An agent must infer when this is the right choice versus create_comment or reply_to_inbox_item.

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