bilibili_comment_add

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

The description's "[互动写入]" tag largely restates what the annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). It never mentions the confirm gate, the requirement that the service run with --enable-writes (both of which appear only in the confirm parameter's schema description), or that posting is irreversible and affects real account state.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the purpose before the parameter note. It is terse but not padded; the only cost is that its brevity leaves significant gaps elsewhere.

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 6-parameter destructive write with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is thin. It omits the required confirm flag, the --enable-writes precondition, expected outcome or return value, and what distinguishes a top-level comment from a reply at the field level.

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?

Given only 17% schema coverage, the description does useful work by defining oid as a video aid and by pointing to root and parent for replies. However, it leaves `type` (an integer with a range of 1-100 but no stated meaning) and `message` completely unaddressed, and it does not define what root and parent actually contain (the top-level comment ID and the ID of the comment being replied to).

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: "发布一条评论/回复" (post a comment/reply), which lets an agent distinguish this write action from read siblings such as bilibili_comments and bilibili_comment_replies. It does not name a sibling it is being contrasted with, 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 "[互动写入]" tag signals the write category, and "回复需root和parent" gives a conditional hint that the reply path requires two extra fields. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (for example, bilibili_comment_delete, or bilibili_comments for reading), and no prerequisites are stated.

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