post-item-comment

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses auth/scope requirements, the side effect that subscribers may be notified, the 65,535-byte backend storage limit, and actionable retry guidance ('Do not automatically retry an uncertain result: this operation is not idempotent'). The retry advice operationalizes the idempotentHint=false annotation into concrete agent behavior rather than merely restating it.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, side effects, limits, and the retry caveat in descending priority. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is filler.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it safely: identity source, permission requirements, notification side effect, size ceiling, and retry policy. Annotations plus this text leave no material behavioral gap.

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 schema already documents every parameter, including the counter-vs-item_id mutual exclusivity and the author-identity note. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Post a comment as the connected Rollbar user.' The action and the actor identity are unambiguous, and it is clearly distinct from the read-oriented siblings (get-item-details, list-items, etc.). It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the operation is self-evidently unique in the set.

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 gives real prerequisites — a configured user token with read and write scope and project comment permission — which tell the agent when the call can succeed. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. when to prefer update-item or how to locate the target item first), leaving usage context largely implied.

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