reply_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action but does not reveal any behavioral traits such as whether the operation creates a new entity, requires authentication, or if it has side effects. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 very concise (one sentence). It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is overly terse, lacking necessary detail. It earns a 3 for being minimal but not wasteful.

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?

Given the tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, any side effects, or how to use it effectively. The tool is a write operation (creates a comment) but lacks critical contextual information.

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 input schema has 50% description coverage: only object_id has a description. The tool's description does not add any additional semantics for the parameters. It does not explain message format, length limits, or how to format object_id. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: to reply or comment on a post or a comment. The verb 'reply/comment' and resource 'post or comment' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like 'post_status' (which might also post content), but the distinction is clear enough.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description simply states the action without any usage context.

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