Create Comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so 'Changes community state' largely restates them. The one genuinely new behavioral fact is that confirm=true is required, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent avoid a failed call, but effects like notification side effects (skip_notifications) and non-idempotency are left unexplained.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded, so it is not bloated. However, the first sentence duplicates the tool name/title and earns no place, while the second crams a guardrail into a single clause.

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 mutation tool with 10 zero-required parameters, nested payload structure, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits which inputs are actually needed (post_id within payload), how to disable notifications, and what happens on success, leaving the agent to reconstruct behavior from the schema alone.

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 10 parameters and only 40% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate and does not. It only gestures at the confirm flag and never clarifies the mutually exclusive input shapes (body flags vs payload vs payload_file) or the required post_id inside payload, all of which live only in the 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create Comment'), but the first sentence merely restates the tool name and title, adding no scope detail. It does not distinguish this from siblings like delete_comment, get_comment, or list_comments, nor does it say where the comment lands (post_id vs parent_comment_id).

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 implies the tool should only be invoked when the user explicitly asked for this action and adds a conditional ('requires confirm=true for the user-requested action'). That is real usage guidance, but it names no alternatives or preconditions for creating a top-level comment vs a reply, and no when-not-to-use cases.

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