Create Footer Comment

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds the 'exactly one' target constraint and explains body_representation formats. It doesn't disclose potential side effects or return behavior, but the bar is lower given annotations, and no contradiction exists.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose sentence, constraint, then a compact arg list. Every element adds value. It's not overly verbose but could be slightly tighter by merging some repetitive phrasing.

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 creation tool with 5 params and no output schema, the description covers required vs optional params, the one-of rule, and body format options. It doesn't explain return values, but that's acceptable without an output schema. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is the sole documentation for parameters. It lists all five parameters with clear meanings and adds the critical mutual-exclusivity constraint. Could be slightly more explicit about valid values for body_representation, but it provides a default and list.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Create a footer comment on a page or blog post, or reply to an existing comment.' It distinctly differentiates from inline comment tools by specifying 'footer comment' and covers all primary use cases (new comment, reply, blog post/page target).

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 explicitly instructs to provide exactly one of page_id, blogpost_id, or parent_comment_id, which is key usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_inline_comment or exclude other tools, though the 'footer comment' scope implies it.

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