ed_post_comment

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

The description discloses that the comment goes live immediately upon posting ('发出即上线'), which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It also explains the routing to the Answers section. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are not contradicted, and the description adds value beyond the structured data.

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 wasted words. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second clarifies the key parameter and the immediate-publishing behavior. 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?

For a simple write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, parameter guidance for the main choice, and a key behavioral note (immediate publishing). Optional flags like is_private and is_anonymous are not explained, but their boolean names make them reasonably self-explanatory, so the description is sufficiently complete for the complexity.

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 only 40% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds crucial meaning to comment_type by explaining the difference between 'answer' and 'comment', but it does not explain is_private or is_anonymous, leaving some gaps. The core differentiating parameter is well-covered.

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 tool posts a comment or answer on an Ed post, using the specific verb 'post' and resource 'Ed post'. It distinguishes between comment types and implies differentiation from siblings like ed_reply_to_comment and ed_post_thread by specifying 'under an Ed post'.

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 provides clear context on when to use 'answer' vs 'comment' based on whether the post is a question. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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