comment_on_post

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

The description discloses the asynchronous workflow, immediate pending status response, the need to call get_workflow_result, duplicate comment risk on retry, and the meaning of pendingReason values including 'queued' and 'outsideWorkingHours'. This is substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations (which are absent).

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 longer than average but front-loads the purpose and critical retry warning, then efficiently explains the async workflow and pending reasons. Every sentence contributes necessary information without 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a thorough account of the tool's behavior, including the pending status object, workflowId/operationName usage, and edge cases like outsideWorkingHours. It adequately covers what the user/agent needs to know to use the tool and handle results.

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?

The input schema fully describes all three parameters (postUrl, text, companyUrl) with requiredness and length constraints, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 tool allows leaving a comment on a post, mentions the specific action (st.commentOnPost), and notes the return of the comment's URN and URL. This distinguishes it from siblings like reply_to_comment or react_to_post.

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 guidance on when not to retry the tool (if workflow is still running) and how to retrieve results via get_workflow_result, including handling of outsideWorkingHours. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools, though the tool name and purpose imply differentiation from reply_to_comment.

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