Reply to message

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it changes live shop data (mutation) and requires seller's explicit confirmation. This is valuable for the agent, though it does not cover potential rate limits or error states.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds behavioral context. It is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose, meeting the highest standard of conciseness.

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 description covers the basic action and a key behavioral requirement (confirmation), but leaves gaps such as how replies are appended, limits on text or attachments, and the absence of an output schema leaves the agent unsure of the response format.

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?

The tool description provides no information about parameters beyond what is in the schema. With only 40% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining the purpose of undocumented parameters like 'text', 'attachments', or 'conversation_id'.

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 explicitly states 'Send a reply in a buyer conversation,' which clearly identifies the action (send reply) and the resource (buyer conversation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_messages (read) and reply_to_review (reply to review).

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 notes that it is a routine action that changes live shop data and requires explicit confirmation, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving usage guidance somewhat implied.

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