Comment on a LinkedIn post

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

The description discloses a critical side effect — 'Publishes immediately' — and adds a user-confirmation requirement, both of which are behavioral traits beyond the annotations (openWorldHint, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false). This provides valuable context for a mutating action with no separate rate-limit or auth notes.

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 entire description is one tight sentence with the essential action and a critical warning front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema data.

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 write action with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and a safety guideline (confirm first. However, it omits return-value expectations and any error conditions, which would help an agent fully understand the call outcome.

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 only 33%; the description adds meaning for organization_id ('as yourself or an organization') but does not explain post_urn or text beyond what their names imply. The core parameters are simple enough that the gap is minor.

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 verb and resource — 'Adds a comment to a post' — and clearly distinguishes identity modes ('as yourself or an organization'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like create_post, react_to_post, and delete_post without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

No explicit 'use this when' or alternative routing is provided; the intended scenario is implied by the tool name and action. The 'confirm with the user first' warning adds an operational guideline, but it does not explain when this tool should be preferred over react_to_post or create_post.

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