Post a comment

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

With only idempotentHint=false in annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important side effect: the comment is attributed to the API key's account, usually a service account. This goes beyond the schema and annotations and helps the agent set proper expectations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds a relevant behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the action, optional reply behavior, and an important identity/attribution detail, which is enough for a simple create operation. It does not describe the return value, but there is no output schema and the omission is minor for invoking this tool correctly.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description adds the optional-reply context for reply_to and the attribution nuance, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for content and page_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Posts a comment on a page, optionally as a reply to another.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_comment, delete_comment, get_comment, and list_comments. The optional reply behavior adds useful precision without ambiguity.

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 clear context for use: creating a comment, optionally as a reply. It also provides practical guidance about attribution to a service account and advises the agent to say so in the text when it matters. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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