Reply to a comment

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly false, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds critical traits the annotations cannot express: the reply is publicly visible under the owner's name, thread participants are emailed (external side effect), and only the account owner is authorized to reply.

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 short sentences, purpose first, then side effects, then the resolve semantics and the authorization constraint. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries decision-relevant 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a mutating, notification-generating tool the description covers who may call it, what it publishes publicly, who gets emailed, and the resolve default — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to `resolve` beyond the schema's 'Resolve the thread with the reply': it explains the thread otherwise stays open so the commenter can resolve it themselves, and that resolve should only be used when asked.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Answers a comment thread on a site as its owner') with an explicit actor. It also clarifies the boundary with the sibling resolve_comment by explaining that the thread stays open unless `resolve` is true, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing and exclusions: 'Publish a fix before replying that it is fixed' sets a prerequisite, and 'resolve only when the person asks' states when NOT to resolve. The default open behavior and the opt-in resolve path are both spelled out.

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