reply_to_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Reply to') which implies a write operation, but doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the comment/post doesn't exist. The output mention is minimal ('dict with reply creation status') without detailing success/failure indicators.

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 appropriately brief with three sentences that cover purpose, inputs, and outputs. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the parameter listing in the description somewhat duplicates what's in the schema, and the output description could be more informative.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address important contextual aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or the structure of the return value beyond 'dict with reply creation status.' Given the complexity of Facebook API interactions and many sibling tools, more guidance is needed.

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?

The description explicitly lists all three parameters (post_id, comment_id, message) with their types, providing basic semantic meaning. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't explain format requirements (e.g., what constitutes valid IDs), length constraints for the message, or special characters handling. The parameter listing adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 clearly states the action ('Reply to') and resource ('a specific comment on a Facebook post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'post_to_facebook' or 'send_dm_to_user' which involve different types of Facebook interactions.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing appropriate permissions), nor does it clarify when to reply versus other actions like deleting comments or posting new content, despite having many sibling tools for Facebook operations.

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