Reply to Mod Bug Report

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds the requirement of a logged-in web session, which is not in annotations, and notes BBCode is allowed. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and source, with no wasted words. It is efficient and scannable, covering the essential points without redundancy.

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 reply tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, source of the ID, content format, and auth prerequisite. Nothing essential is missing, though it doesn't mention return values or error conditions, which are not required given the lack of an output schema.

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 only 33% (only dry_run has a description). The description compensates by explaining that issue_id comes from get_mod_bugs and that text supports BBCode. This adds meaning to two of the three parameters beyond the schema, though it doesn't explain dry_run beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the action (reply) and the resource (bug report), and specifies the source of issue_id from get_mod_bugs. It distinguishes from siblings like post_mod_bug (create) and delete_mod_bug by the word 'reply'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool – replying to an existing bug report – and mentions the prerequisite of having an issue_id from get_mod_bugs. It also states the auth requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.

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