tokportal_create_comment_tasks

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it reveals that each accepted task costs 1 credit, TokPortal locks and revalidates the account before debit, and all inserts commit in one transaction. It also explains partial-success semantics (rejected rows free). While informative, it could clarify the exact effect on credits for partial successes more precisely.

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 concise, consisting of only five sentences with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create comment tasks') and efficiently covers batch limits, credit costs, preconditions, transaction behavior, and idempotency recommendations.

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 complexity (batch creation, credit charges, idempotency, preconditions) and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers what an agent needs: how to use it safely, what preconditions exist, what guarantees are provided, and how to avoid double charges. No gaps are apparent.

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 all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-specific details but does provide crucial operational context (e.g., idempotency usage) that isn't in the schema. The baseline is 3, but the extra context elevates it to 4.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'comment tasks', and specifies that it can handle single or batch (up to 200) operations. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like tokportal_list_comment_tasks, tokportal_delete_comment_task, and tokportal_get_comment_task by focusing on creation.

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 explicitly provides when to use the tool (creating comment tasks) and includes critical guidelines such as sending an Idempotency-Key for safe retries, reading credits_charged instead of calculating, and clarifying that rejected rows are never charged. It also describes prerequisites (saved account must be client-owned and allowed) and batch behavior.

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