Public reply to comment

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

The description says 'Post a public reply', which is a state-changing write operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction: an agent could infer the tool is read-only while it actually publishes content.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler.

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?

It omits the operation's write effects, required permissions, expected response, and how it differs from the sibling reply_to_comment. The contradiction with the read-only annotation leaves an agent with dangerously incomplete context.

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 low and the description adds little parameter meaning. It clarifies 'comment' context, but does not explain the critical 'user' parameter, what form the message takes, or the relationship between user and commentId.

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 a specific action (post), a specific object (public reply), and placement (under the original Instagram comment). It is not explicitly contrasted with the sibling reply_to_comment, so it loses the top point.

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 choose this tool over siblings like reply_to_comment, nor any prerequisites such as authentication, comment ownership, or rate-limit considerations.

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