post_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Premium plan requirement, which is useful context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, whether comments are editable/deletable, response format, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The Premium plan requirement is concisely added at the end. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, comment ID), error conditions, or behavioral nuances like platform-specific limitations. The Premium plan note helps, but overall coverage is inadequate for a 6-parameter tool with significant side effects.

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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning support for text and image comments (implied by 'comment' and 'mediaUrls' parameters) and multiple platforms (implied by 'platforms'). It doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for parameters.

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 action ('Post a comment') and resource ('on a social media post'), specifying support for text and image comments across multiple platforms. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_post' by focusing on commenting rather than creating original posts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_comment' or 'get_comments' beyond the verb difference.

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 implies usage for commenting on existing social media posts, with the 'Requires Premium plan' note providing some contextual constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_post' for new posts or 'delete_comment' for removal, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the plan requirement.

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