reply_to_comment

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool modifies a document (mutation), requires specific permissions, or whether the 'quiet' parameter suppresses notifications. With no annotations, the description must provide this context but fails to do so.

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 extremely concise—one sentence of five words. While brevity is good, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. The description is not structured to front-load key information; it simply states the action. A slightly longer description would improve usability without losing conciseness.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, 21 sibling tools), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain how replying relates to comments, authentication requirements, or the effect of the 'quiet' parameter. The description fails to provide a complete picture for an AI 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?

Schema description coverage is only 40% (only 'doc' and 'account' have descriptions). The tool's description adds nothing beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of 'text', 'quiet', or 'comment_id'. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient to guide correct invocation.

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 ('to a document comment'). It is a verb+resource pair that immediately conveys the tool's core function. However, it lacks detail to distinguish it from siblings like 'add_comment' or 'resolve_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool replies to an existing comment thread, nor does it contrast with 'add_comment' or 'resolve_comment'. This omission makes it harder for an AI agent to select the correct tool.

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