bili_comment_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses permission gating, default-off behavior, no force/retry/batch, and that a receipt does not prove public visibility. However, it omits whether the comment is reversible/deletable and any rate-limit behavior.

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 with no filler; the key precondition and caveats are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a write tool.

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?

The description covers permission gating and visibility caveats, and an output schema exists so return format need not be explained. But with three required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the missing parameter roles leave the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description never explains bvid, text, or action_id. The most critical parameter, action_id, is completely undefined, so the description does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 identifies a top-level public comment and contrasts it with reply-oriented siblings via 'top-level,' making the resource and scope clear. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'send' or 'create,' but the meaning is still 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?

It states a hard precondition: 'only when comment permission explicitly enabled; defaults off,' and rules out force, auto-retry, and batch. It does not explicitly name bili_comment_reply as the alternative for replies, so guidance is strong but not fully complete.

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