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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the 'WRITE tool' label is consistent with them. The description adds value annotations do not carry: the hidden side effect that this also cancels a scheduled post, plus plan and write-scope auth requirements.

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?

Two sentences with the tool type and effect front-loaded, no filler. The parenthetical '(trial counts)' is slightly cryptic but still earns its space by clarifying plan applicability.

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 single-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the write nature, the side effect, and the auth/plan gates. It lacks reversibility details and routing to the sibling cancel/post/draft tools, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines review_id as a Sonar review id distinct from Apple's review id. The description adds no further syntax, default, or lookup guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('mark a review as not needing a reply') and adds a secondary effect (cancels a scheduled post). It does not name the adjacent siblings (sonar_cancel_review_reply, sonar_post_review_reply, sonar_draft_review_reply), leaving a real overlap with cancel_review_reply unresolved.

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?

Provides prerequisites (Indie plan, authorized account or write-scoped API key) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. Nothing tells the agent how to choose between dismissing and cancelling a reply, even though the description itself implies the two overlap.

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