create_comment

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false (write operation), destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states permission requirement ('Caller must be permitted to post in the discussion's group'), and default behavior for body_format. It does not mention return value or side effects, but with openWorldHint=true, this is acceptable. Slightly incomplete but adds meaningful value.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter info, then usage guidance, then alternative. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. Extremely concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, permissions, parameter details, and alternative tool. It addresses all essential aspects for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. Missing return value is acceptable since no output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description rephrases the required and optional parameters ('Required: discussion_id, body. Optional body_format') and adds default behavior ('defaults to the group's setting'), which is already in the schema description. No new semantic information beyond schema.

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 'Post a comment (reply) on an existing Loomio discussion.' It uses a specific verb (post), resource (comment/reply), and scope (existing discussion). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool create_discussion by stating 'For starting a new thread instead, use create_discussion.'

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'reply to thread X', 'add a follow-up to discussion Y', or 'chain a series of automated updates.' It also specifies a when-not-to-use alternative: 'For starting a new thread instead, use create_discussion.' It mentions required and optional parameters, and permission requirements.

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