manage_comment

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, so the safety bar is lower, but the description still adds substantive behavior: update is reversible with no confirmation, delete is irreversible and admin-only, and reply/delete require a two-call preview then confirm flow with a preview_id. It does not describe the contents of the preview object or what happens if a preview_id expires, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 single dense paragraph is front-loaded and organized action-by-action, and nearly every clause carries a constraint an agent needs. It is slightly run-on, packing platform restrictions, reversibility, and the confirm flow into long sentences that would read faster as a short bulleted action list.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains the only non-obvious return value an agent must handle, the preview plus preview_id from the preview call. For a 9-parameter multi-action mutation tool, the plan requirement, platform matrix, permission limits, and irreversibility are all disclosed, leaving no blocking gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by tying parameters to actions and to each other, notably that confirm=true is only valid paired with the preview_id from the prior call and that type=private is Instagram-only while other platforms accept public replies only. It adds real conditional semantics the flat schema cannot express, though a few parameters (workspace_id, is_read scope) are left entirely to the schema.

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 states a specific resource (an inbox comment) and enumerates the three concrete operations with their own parameter sets: action=reply (comment_id, content), action=update (is_hidden/is_read), action=delete (comment_id). It is clearly separable from list_comments and manage_conversation because it disclaims listing/reading behavior and focuses purely on acting on an existing 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance per action and names alternatives for blocked cases: 'Threads replies cannot be deleted, hide them instead' routes the agent from delete to update. It also specifies prerequisites (Pro plan or higher plus posts:write) and the required preview-then-confirm sequence for reply and delete, with update explicitly noted as needing no confirm.

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