watch_reply

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: Herald derives routing from duty_id, delivery_id, and the validated profile; it tries a native Telegram reply before falling back to a quoted reply only after explicit rejection; and the delivery closes only after a send receipt. This gives the agent useful expectations about execution order and side effects.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second explains the derivation model, and the third covers execution and completion semantics. Every sentence 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?

The description covers invocation context, routing derivation, fallback behavior, and completion semantics. Since there is no output schema, a note about the return value would improve completeness, but the description is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that duty_id and delivery_id drive Herald routing and that no Telegram/project/route/agent/model parameters are needed. However, it does not explain text, subject, or format beyond their self-evident names and the format enum/default.

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: replying to a claimed Watch delivery through its configured Herald route. It is specific about the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling watch_reply_batch or watch_ack.

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 context is clear: this tool is for replying to a claimed Watch delivery when duty_id and delivery_id are known. It does not provide explicit exclusions or compare against alternatives like watch_reply_batch, so while the usage context is evident, there is no direct when-not-to-use guidance.

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