send_reply_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the two-step draft+confirm process and the user-facing nesting behavior, but omits details on draft lifecycle, expiration, rate limits, or authorization requirements.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by behavioral context and user-facing effect. No extraneous content.

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?

Despite having an output schema (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description lacks details on parameter formats (e.g., timestamp syntax) and the confirmation step. For a 4-parameter tool with 3 required and no annotation, it is somewhat sparse but covers the essential workflow.

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%, requiring description to compensate. The description explains 'target_ts' as the target message timestamp and implies threading, but leaves other parameters (text, channel, workspace) without explanation. The workspace parameter's optional/nullable nature and format expectations are not addressed.

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 tool stages a reply threaded under a target message timestamp, using specific verb 'Stage a reply' and resource 'thread under target_ts'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'send_message' by focusing on replies without introducing ambiguity.

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 references 'Same draft+confirm semantics as send_message,' guiding the agent on the usage pattern. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives to other sibling tools like 'add_reaction' or 'delete_own_message'.

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