create_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the core function ('Reply to a specific thread/post') without disclosing any side effects, return values, or constraints. It does not go beyond what the name implies.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded but may be too terse to provide meaningful guidance, lacking structure like behavior notes or examples.

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 tool has 5 parameters, 2 enums, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, the role of media_type, or how reply_control affects visibility, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

Since the schema describes all 5 parameters (100% coverage), the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline is 3, and the description adds no additional semantics.

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 ('Reply') and the target ('specific thread/post'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like manage_reply or quote_post, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with siblings like manage_reply or quote_post.

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