Reply to Support Conversation

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; description adds that it is a write operation, goes to the end-user on the conversation's channel, and is sent as the connected member. Adds useful context beyond 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?

Three sentences: first states purpose and effect, second gives prerequisites, third differentiates from siblings and mentions required params. No wasted words, 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?

For a tool with 2 params, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, prerequisites, alternatives, and required params. Complete for effective use.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, but description adds practical context: conversation_id should come from list_conversations, and body is required. The example schema provides a concrete usage pattern.

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 it sends a public reply to a support-inbox conversation as the connected member, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning add_note and resolve_conversation.

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 provides when to use (public reply), when not to (use add_note for internal notes, resolve_conversation to close), and prerequisites (resolve conversation_id via list_conversations, read thread with get_conversation).

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