propose_reply

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses behavior: it's a write but not final, dedup hash computation, token storage, 5-minute expiration, preview return, and linkage to confirm_reply. Lacks details on error cases or rate limits, but sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the key term 'STAGE A WRITE'. Every sentence provides unique information without redundancy. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given no output schema, description explains the two-phase flow, token expiration, and the need to call confirm_reply. Could mention how the token is returned or used, but overall sufficiently complete for a complex workflow.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains parent_response_id's role (reply under specific response vs top-level). For post_id and body, it adds minimal value beyond the schema's type and required flags; body validation is implied but not detailed. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 it stages a write (not final), validates, computes dedup hash, stores under token, returns token+preview. Distinguishes from siblings like confirm_reply and post_response by describing the two-phase commit pattern.

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 says 'STAGE A WRITE (no Medium call yet)' and 'On approval call confirm_reply', guiding the agent to use this for proposing before finalizing. Tokens expire in 5 minutes. Does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear.

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