inline-comments-phab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key side effect of not publishing, which is important. But it does not mention other behavioral traits such as idempotency, permissions, rate limits, or how existing draft comments are handled.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and non-publishing behavior. There is no filler or redundant content, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, a single sentence is insufficient. The description only conveys the overall purpose and non-publication, but leaves essential operational details and parameter semantics unaddressed. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but too many gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter meaning. It only hints at 'review findings JSON', which loosely maps to review_json or findings, but leaves revision_id, max_comments, include_title, and is_new_file completely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('creates') and names the exact resource ('draft inline comments on a Differential revision') and the input type ('review findings JSON'). It also clarifies the non-publishing behavior, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'review-phab'.

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 provides clear context by stating that the tool creates draft comments and explicitly says it does not publish, which is a useful when-not signal. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe scenarios when to prefer 'review-phab'.

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