tokportal_create_comment_tasks

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: each accepted task costs 1 credit, the account is locked and revalidated before debit, accepted inserts commit in one transaction, rejected rows are never charged, and an Idempotency-Key replays the completed response without a second charge.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides dense, non-redundant details about credits, account eligibility, transactionality, and idempotency. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 complex creation tool with no output schema, the description covers key operational aspects: batch limits, credit charging, partial success, transaction atomicity, and safe retries. It mentions credits_charged as a response field but does not fully describe the response shape, which is a minor 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema, including the manager-assigned account requirement, credit cost per accepted task, the instruction to read credits_charged rather than calculating it, and the idempotency-key reuse guidance.

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 tool creates comment tasks, either as a single task or a batch of up to 200. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_comment_tasks, delete_comment_task, and approve_comment_task by focusing on creation and partial-success batch behavior.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: creating one or many comment tasks, with prerequisites such as client-owned, manager-assigned accounts and Coverage requirements. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the creation purpose and batch capability are unambiguous.

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