Reply to forum post

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., permission requirements, whether replies are appended in order, or if editing a reply is possible). No contradiction with annotations, but no added value.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is immediately understandable and front-loaded with the action and target.

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 action tool, the description combined with the schema is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention prerequisites like needing an existing post, the meaning of 'post' (title or ID), or any return behavior, even though no output schema exists. It gets the job done but leaves some gaps.

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 75%, and the schema already documents the purpose of each parameter (post, guild, embeds, content). The description itself adds nothing about parameters, so it neither helps nor hinders beyond the schema.

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 'Add a reply inside a forum post.' uses a specific verb ('Add') and a clear resource ('reply inside a forum post'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like create_forum_post, update_forum_post, and delete_forum_post by focusing on adding a reply to an existing post.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create_forum_post should be used for new posts, or that update_forum_post is for editing the post itself. Usage is only implied by the tool name and title.

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