Reply to a comment thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It discloses the key side-effect boundary (does not resolve) and the intended timing ('before it is resolved'), though it does not mention permissions or behavior on resolved threads.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the action and purpose, the second gives the id source, and the third clarifies a key distinction. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, use cases, id provenance, and relationship to sibling tools, leaving no significant gap for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It reinforces the id source and gives context for the role parameter ('as a defender'), but text and role meaning are already documented in the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource ('Add a reply to a comment's thread') and lists concrete use cases. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from resolve_comment, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 description states clear when-to-use scenarios (clarifying question, explaining reasoning, defender pushback) and gives an explicit alternative: 'This does not resolve the comment; use resolve_comment for that.' It also tells the agent to use the comment id from check_comments.

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