fb_reply_to_comment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It indicates a write-like action but does not disclose whether the reply is published immediately, whether special permissions are required, whether it can reply to any comment or only those on the page's posts, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it leaves out semantic detail that other dimensions penalize.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, so the description needed to provide substantially more context. It lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, permission requirements, and any sense of side effects, making it incomplete for an agent that needs to invoke it reliably.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names comment_id and message. It does not clarify that comment_id identifies the Facebook comment to reply to, that message is the reply text, or any constraints such as length limits. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 (reply) on a specific resource (a comment on a Facebook post), which is clear and minimally distinguishes it from sibling tools like ig_reply_to_comment. It could go further by indicating whether this creates a new comment or sends a direct reply, but the basic purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fb_get_comments, fb_create_text_post, or ig_reply_to_comment. The description only implies usage through the verb 'reply' and the resource 'Facebook post', but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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