Reply to a ModDB comment

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

Annotations carry only readOnlyHint=false, so the description does real work: it discloses that the text is Markdown converted to HTML and that content must be user-approved due to ModDB anti-spam rules. It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether the reply posts immediately or awaits moderation.

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 tight sentences with no padding; the operation is front-loaded and the content constraint follows immediately.

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 low-complexity write tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input format, and content policy. It omits only return/confirmation behavior and permission requirements, which is a minor gap.

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 schema already documents mod identifier formats, comment_id provenance ('from list_comments'), and Markdown text. The description only restates the Markdown aspect, adding no further parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Post a reply to a comment on a mod's ModDB page'), which naturally separates it from siblings edit_comment and delete_comment. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 policy constraint ('Use only user-approved wording') is useful guidance on acceptable content, but there is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing, e.g. pointing to edit_comment for revising an existing reply or noting prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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