reply_to_conversation

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

Discloses that message is visible to visitor and sent as token owner, which is critical behavioral context. Lacks mention of rate limits or error handling but sufficient for simple tool.

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, no wasted words, front-loads action and return value, then adds behavioral context and usage hint.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, covers purpose, behavior, prerequisite, and sibling differentiation completely.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds value by noting body is visitor-visible and conversation_id comes from list_conversations.

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 'Send a reply into a support conversation and return the sent message', specifying verb, resource, and separating from sibling tool add_note via visibility distinction.

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 tells when to use (reply, visible to visitor) and when not (use add_note for internal triage), plus prerequisite to resolve conversation_id with list_conversations.

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