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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that replying to a needs_info question reopens the request. This is useful side-effect information. It does not cover all possible side effects, but annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds relevant detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the scope, and a concrete example without any filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, the alternative (opening a new request), and a key behavioral consequence (reopening). Minor gaps like response behavior and request_id semantics are not critical given the tool's simplicity and sibling context.

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 67%, with body and as_team documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, and request_id remains undocumented in both schema and description. This is adequate but not compensatory.

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 ('Add a reply or a finding') and a clear resource ('platform request'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from opening a new request. The example ('answer a needs_info question') makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to respond to or add a finding to an existing platform request rather than creating a new one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'without opening a new one' phrasing and the needs_info example provide solid guidance.

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