preview_reply_forum_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that. It adds a useful constraint: the reply must be public and without attachments, and it states the purpose of checking the audience. This provides context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe return format or limits.

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?

A single imperative sentence that gets straight to the point: preview a public reply without attachments and check its audience. No filler words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with no output schema and 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage, this description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the preview returns, what 'audience' means, or how the parameters relate. An agent would need to infer too much from names and context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters, but it provides none. It only vaguely references 'a public reply without attachments', leaving course_id, forum_id, parent_post_id, subject, group_id, and message uninterpreted. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic detail.

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 states a specific action (preview) on a specific resource (a public forum reply) and adds a purpose (check its audience). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling reply_forum_post by signaling a non-mutating preview, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: this is a preview tool, so it should be used before committing to a reply via reply_forum_post. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, relying on the prefix convention of sibling preview_* tools.

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