add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'requires authentication' but does not describe return values, side effects, idempotency, or error conditions. This is a minimal disclosure that covers only one aspect of behavior.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. It is concise with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and the authentication requirement. However, it lacks usage differentiation from the sibling 'respond_to_post' and does not clarify return behavior, which are important contextual gaps for an agent deciding to invoke this 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?

The schema already describes both parameters (number and content) with complete coverage (100%), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Add a comment') and the target ('to a post'), making it distinct from sibling tools like update_comment, delete_comment, and respond_to_post. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as respond_to_post or other comment-related tools. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the selection decision to the agent without explicit context or exclusions.

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