reply_to_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) but does not disclose that it mutates data, whether it requires specific authentication (like page access token), rate limits, or what the response contains (though an output schema exists). For a write operation with zero annotations, it should be more explicit about side effects.

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?

Single sentence with an explicit endpoint hint (POST /{comment-id}/comments) is concise and front-loaded. The verb and resource are clear. Though sparse, it has no wasted words.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks critical context for a mutation tool: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, that a page access token is likely needed, the relationship to publish_comment vs reply_to_comment, any content limitations (e.g., message length), or error handling. With an output schema present, it can omit return details, but it still misses important usage context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what 'message' should contain (text, format, length limits) or what 'comment_id' refers to (the parent comment's ID). The vague parameter names in the schema leave ambiguity that the description does not resolve.

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 states a clear verb ('Reply') and resource ('existing comment'), matching the resource pattern of sibling tools like get_comment_replies, publish_comment, and delete_comment. However, it lacks differentiation from publish_comment, which likely also creates a comment (just a top-level one vs a nested reply). The endpoint hint helps clarify but is still minimal.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of publish_comment, get_comment_replies, or reply_to_comment vs other write tools. It does not mention any prerequisites (like needing a valid comment_id or that it creates a nested comment rather than a top-level one). An agent could confuse this with publish_comment.

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