reply_to_comment

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

No annotations provided. Description covers char limit and return id, but lacks details on authorization, whether it edits existing replies, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but could be richer.

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?

Two concise sentences conveying essential information. No redundancy, front-loaded with verb and resource.

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?

Given the simple operation and presence of output schema (even if not shown), description provides key info: char limit and return id. Could mention that comment must be on user's own media. Overall adequate for a straightforward tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds char constraint for message and notes return value, but does not explain account parameter or what comment_id must refer to. Partial compensation.

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?

Description clearly states 'Reply to a comment' with verb and resource. It also adds constraints (message <= 2200 chars) and return value (new comment id). Distinguishes from sibling tools like hide_comment or delete_comment.

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?

No explicit instructions on when to use this tool vs alternatives like send_message. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need to own the media or have permissions). Usage is implied but not clarified.

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