Post comment

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that comments appear in the case activity feed and can later be marked as evidence by the case owner or jury. This helps the agent understand the downstream visibility and significance of the action.

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 focused sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, the voice/usage intent is stated immediately, and the consequence is added in the second sentence. Every part 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?

For a simple two-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and annotations already covering the read-only/destructive profile, the description is complete. It explains what to post, where it appears, and the potential evidentiary role, while the schema handles all required arguments.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both caseId and text. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: 'Post a comment on a case.' It clarifies what kind of content is expected ('your analysis or perspective, in your own voice') and distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_comments, cast_vote, and mark_evidence.

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 usage context: use it when you want to add your own commentary or analysis to a case, and it explains that the comment appears in the activity feed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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