runrunit_create_external_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 no-Markdown constraint, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not detail other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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 two sentences, directly stating the purpose and a key usage constraint. It is efficient and front-loaded with essential information, with no unnecessary words.

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 is simple with two required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and text format but does not explain what the response will be (e.g., comment ID or success status). For a creation tool, this is a gap.

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%, but the description adds the meaningful constraint that the text must be simple and without Markdown, which the schema's 'Comment text' does not convey. The task_id parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool creates a comment in the external/guest channel on a task, specifically for sharing with external clients. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'runrunit_create_comment' which likely handles internal comments.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is for comments shared with external clients and specifies the channel name. It also notes the constraint of using simple text without Markdown. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives like the internal comment tool.

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