Submit top-level comments or nested replies on Reddit with a realistic typing cadence for natural interactions.
Submit a top-level comment on a post or a nested reply to an existing comment with human typing cadence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Markdown comment text | |
| post_id_or_url | Yes | Post identifier (t3_...) or permalink URL | |
| parent_comment_id | No | Parent comment ID (t1_...) to reply nestedly; omitted for top-level |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a valuable non-obvious behavioral trait ('human typing cadence') and clarifies placement modes. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, the public nature of the comment, or behavior on invalid IDs, leaving some behavioral context undisclosed.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then qualifies with placement modes and cadence. There is no filler; every phrase 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?
The tool is simple (3 params, 2 required) and the schema fully documents parameters. The description covers both invocation modes and one key execution detail. It is sufficient for selection and invocation, though the lack of an output schema means agents won't know what return value to expect.
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 baseline is 3. The description's top-level/nested language mirrors the parent_comment_id schema text and adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for post_id_or_url or body.
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 ('submit') and resource ('comment'), and explicitly covers two distinct usage modes: top-level comments and nested replies. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like reddit_submit_post and reddit_send_message without needing to open their schemas.
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 establishes clear context for when to use the tool: when a comment needs to be posted on a post or as a reply to an existing comment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource type ('comment') makes exclusions against posting or messaging implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.