Reply to a discussion

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication (requires token) and content format (Markdown), but lacks details on rate limits, side effects, or error behavior. This is minimal but functional for a simple write operation.

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 that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. Every part earns its place.

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?

The tool has low complexity (2 params, no output schema) and the description covers action, auth, and format. Missing details like response type or discussion existence checks, but overall adequate for a write tool.

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% with both parameters having descriptions. The description only repeats that content is Markdown (already in schema) and adds no new semantic information. Given high coverage, baseline 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 description states 'Post a reply to an existing discussion,' which clearly specifies the verb (post), resource (reply), and context (existing discussion). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_discussion (new discussion) and get_discussion (retrieval).

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 mentions the requirement of REVERSER_API_TOKEN and that content is Markdown, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_discussion, though the name and context signals make it inferable.

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