reply_to_topic

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It indicates only that a reply will be made with a Markdown body, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., publishing a new post, notifications), authentication requirements, or error/return 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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical and optional clause add useful operation details without bloating the text.

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 three-parameter tool, the core call is understandable and enough to select it, but the absence of annotations and output schema leaves notable gaps around side effects, permissions, and return values.

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 only 33% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that raw is a Markdown body (redundant with the schema) and that reply_to_post_number selects an optional specific post, but it does not describe topic_id beyond the word 'topic.'

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Reply to a topic') and adds two relevant details: the body is Markdown and a specific post number can optionally be targeted. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools such as create_topic, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 intended use is implied: when an agent wants to post a reply to an existing topic, this is the tool. No when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives are given, even though create_topic and send_private_message are close siblings.

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