Reply to Comment

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only mentions that the reply is public and published to the original platform, but does not discuss authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens if the comment cannot be replied to (e.g., deleted, permissions). The description is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. No redundancy or wasted information.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and platform. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., connected accounts), error handling, or response format. Given the complexity, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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% with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format constraints, length limits). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Post a public reply') and the resource ('a comment'), and specifies that the reply is published to original platforms like Facebook, Instagram, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like repliz_create_content_comment (creates new comment on content) or repliz_message_content_comment (sends private message).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., repliz_message_content_comment for private replies, or repliz_update_comment_status for status updates). There are no when-not conditions or context for when to avoid this tool.

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