Reply to a review

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

The description adds several behavioral details beyond the annotations: PUT upsert overwriting, verified-location requirement, rate limit of 10 edits/min, and v4-only availability. These complement the idempotent hint and readOnly=false without contradicting any annotations.

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 pack a large amount of relevant detail without redundancy. Information is ordered from the core verb to the implications, making it front-loaded.

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 the 4 required params and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (verified locations), return value format (ReviewReply {comment, updateTime}), rate-limit implications, and API version. This is comprehensive for an AI agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 covers all 4 params with descriptions, but the description adds meaning about the upsert effect on the existing reply and the reply text constraints. It clarifies that comment will replace any prior reply, which is not encoded in the schema, and notes the return value.

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 opens with 'Creates OR replaces the business's public reply to a review,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_review_reply and get_review by explaining the PUT upsert semantics and that it returns the ReviewReply.

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?

It explains that this only works on verified locations, clarifies there is no separate create (calling again overwrites), and notes the legacy v4 API constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for specific conditions (e.g., 'use delete_review_reply to remove'), so it misses the explicit alternatives benchmark.

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