ig_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the two most important traits — the reply is public and the text should be user-confirmed. It omits whether the reply can be edited or deleted, whether auth/ownership of the account is required, and any rate limits, leaving real behavioral gaps for a write 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the safety constraint. No 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?

For a simple two-parameter, no-output tool the description covers the critical public-write warning, but it leaves both parameters undocumented and gives no hint of the response, which is a real gap at 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it says nothing about the two parameters. An agent must guess that commentId identifies the parent comment and that message accepts only plain text (no media, no mention syntax).

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?

"Reply to a comment" gives a specific verb plus resource, which separates it from ig_comments (reading) and ig_publish/ig_schedule (posting new content). It does not explicitly name any sibling as the alternative, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 implies usage (when someone has commented and you want to respond) and adds a workflow gate: confirm the text with the user first. It never says when NOT to use it (e.g., vs ig_publish for top-level posts, or ig_comments to just read), so guidance is only implied.

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