reply_to_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers key traits: replies are public, limited to 350 characters, editing existing replies, and user notification only for the first reply. This goes well beyond a basic 'reply to a review' and helps the agent anticipate 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?

The description is three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, constraints, and behavioral nuance. It is front-loaded, with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the action, input source, limitations, and side effects, covering all necessary context for selection and invocation. Additional details like return values are not needed given the tool's simplicity.

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 parameters are already well-documented with descriptions for review_id, reply_text, and package_name. The description adds little beyond what the schema states—'Get review IDs from list_reviews' mirrors the schema's own description, and the character limit is already in the schema. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opening phrase 'Post a public developer reply to a user review' uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_reviews or promote_release, which serve different functions.

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 advises to obtain review IDs from list_reviews, providing a clear workflow hint. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the tool's narrow purpose and the instruction to use list_reviews for IDs imply appropriate usage context.

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