runrunit_create_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the format constraints (no Markdown), the optional evidence capture workflow (capture, upload, append to text), and the required order of operations. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., notifications) or return values, but for a creation tool, the key behaviors are well covered.

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 highly concise: two sentences, the first covering purpose and format, the second outlining the evidence capture steps in a clear, bullet-point-like structure. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema. The description covers the main creation behavior, format constraints, and the complex optional workflow. It does not explain behavior when only one of url_antes/url_depois is provided, nor does it mention error handling or response format, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a creation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the format of 'text' (plain text and raw URLs only, no Markdown) and the conditional behavior of 'url_antes' and 'url_depois' (when both are provided, trigger evidence capture). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Create a comment on a task in Runrun.it' with specific details about format (plain text and raw URLs only) and an optional evidence capture workflow using url_antes and url_depois. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like runrunit_get_comment, runrunit_update_comment, and runrunit_delete_comment by highlighting a unique behavior.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool, especially the multi-step evidence capture process when both url_antes and url_depois are provided. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like runrunit_update_comment or runrunit_create_external_comment, leaving some ambiguity.

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