rednote_reply_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key non-obvious trait: the reply is queued for human approval and not posted, so the agent knows nothing is published immediately. It omits secondary behavior such as auth requirements, what happens to the queued item afterwards, or where approval occurs.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the action and the critical 'does NOT post' caveat front-loaded before the parameter instruction. Every clause 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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description is the sole source of guidance for a 5-required-param mutation-ish tool. It covers the sourcing of three params but leaves the url/text parameters and the post-queue lifecycle (approval page) unexplained, so an agent can make the call but not fully reason about it.

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% across 5 required params, so the description must compensate. It explains the origin and exact-pass-through semantics of commentId, commentAuthor and commentText, but says nothing about 'url' (presumably the note) or 'text' (the reply body, especially its 500-char limit), leaving two of five params unilluminated.

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?

States a precise verb+resource+outcome: 'Queue a reply to one comment for human approval.' The follow-up 'Does NOT post.' sharply distinguishes it from the sibling rednote_post_comment, which an agent can pick between without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete workflow context: pass commentId, commentAuthor and commentText exactly as rednote_get_comments returned them, which tells the agent to call rednote_get_comments first and what to feed in. It does not explicitly name rednote_post_comment or rednote_open_approval_page as the alternative/next step, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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