Reply to a comment

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

The description is minimal beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false. It only mentions the operation and a parameter source, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or response behavior. The added commentRef hint is more about parameter sourcing than behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is a single, tightly scoped sentence with a useful parenthetical. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema and a sparse description, the agent is left without information on what happens after replying, potential errors, or authentication prerequisites. The only extra context is the commentRef source, which is not enough for a write operation.

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 description coverage is only 25% (asPage). The description clarifies commentRef's source but does not explain post or text semantics. This partial compensation is insufficient for a tool with three undocumented required parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Reply' with a clear resource 'a comment', and the parenthetical 'use commentRef from read_post_comments' adds precision about the required input. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_post and read_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 gives explicit guidance by telling the agent to use commentRef from read_post_comments, establishing a clear prerequisite for usage. However, it does not state exclusions or compare with alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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