reply_forum_post

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning 'approved' and 'recent preview', which hints at the confirmation token but does not explain the publish action's side effects or requirements. No contradiction, but limited additional 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 wasted words. It front-loads the main action, but its brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential details, making it under-specified rather than optimally sized.

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 destructive action with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation coverage beyond hints, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to mention the confirmation token, subject, group_id, or any return behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient information to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter meanings. It only hints at the preview process, which relates to confirmation_token, but does not explain any of the 7 parameters, including required ones like message, forum_id, or parent_post_id. This is a significant gap.

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 clear verb ('posts') and resource ('public reply' to a forum post), and mentions the requirement of a recent preview, which aligns with the sibling preview_reply_forum_post. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the preview tool or other forum actions like create_forum_discussion, so it's clear but not fully distinguishable.

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?

It implies usage after a preview ('through a recent preview') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the preview tool or any alternatives. It lacks explicit conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the correct workflow.

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