Post inline review comment

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the operational context that write access must be explicitly enabled, which is beyond the annotations and useful for the agent. It does not elaborate on side effects or return behavior, but with annotations present this is a reasonable level.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a necessary prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and important information is front-loaded.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the write-access requirement. However, it would benefit from mentioning when to prefer this over submit_review for multi-comment scenarios. The schema carries the rest of the parameter detail, so overall it is mostly 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 description coverage is 100%, so all 10 parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Post a single inline comment at a diff line.' This clearly states the action, scope, and distinguishes it from siblings like list_pr_comments or submit_review.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Write access must be explicitly enabled') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_review. It implies the niche (single inline comment) but lacks comparative guidance.

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