skool_posts_comment

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does contribute two useful behavioral facts: auth cookies are required and the call targets api2.skool.com. However, it never explicitly flags the write/mutation character or its side effects, and it says nothing about error behavior, rate limits, or reversibility. This is more than a bare statement but leaves meaningful gaps for a mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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 the purpose front-loaded in the first and auth/endpoint details in the next two. There is no filler, no repetition of schema content, and nothing an agent would want to skim past. The size fits the tool's simplicity.

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 three-string-param tool with fully documented schema properties, the description covers the what, the auth prerequisite, and the endpoint. But with no output schema and no annotations, an agent has no indication of the expected response shape or how failures surface. A sentence on return value or success/failure semantics would close the remaining gap.

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% — postId (post UUID), content (comment text), and groupId (group UUID) are each already meaningfully documented. The tool description adds nothing param-specific beyond the word 'post,' which maps to postId. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb (Add) with a concrete resource (a comment on a post), so the operation is immediately identifiable. This implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like skool_posts_create (which creates the post itself) and skool_posts_list/get (which read posts). No other sibling handles comments, so an agent can confidently select this tool.

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 intended use case — posting a comment to an existing post — is clear from the purpose statement, but there is no when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The 'Requires auth cookies' remark is the only practical precondition offered. The agent is left to infer how this differs from skool_posts_create or what conditions make it inappropriate.

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