reply_to_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses WRITE nature, dry_run default, dedup protection, and the safety stack. However, it does not detail the outcome of a successful reply (e.g., auto-publish or draft) or any permissions/rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the action and key behaviors. No redundant words; every sentence adds essential information.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers core purpose, usage boundaries, and safety features. It omits return/outcome details but is largely sufficient.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the dry_run parameter's default and the dedup logic tying note_id and body. It does not describe note_id format or body constraints, so it only partially compensates.

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 'Reply to an existing Note (any author's)', specifying the verb 'reply' and the resource 'note'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'comment_on_post' and 'propose_reply' by directing users to those for post 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?

The description explicitly says 'For replies to a post comment, use propose_reply -> confirm_reply', providing clear when-not use and specific alternative tools. It also explains the dry_run default and dedup behavior, aiding appropriate usage.

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