manage_reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without covering permissions, reversibility, effects on other users, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 that immediately communicates the core action. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 2-parameter mutation tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks behavioral context such as what happens when a reply is hidden, whether it is reversible, or who is affected. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description could provide more surrounding context to be fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (hide, reply_id) are fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action (hide/show) on a specific resource (replies) with scope ('your threads'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_reply or get_thread_replies. It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to manage visibility of replies), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage without further guidance.

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