reply_to_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auto-phrasing behavior for empty content, which is useful. However, it does not mention other aspects like authentication requirements, error handling for invalid comment_id, or whether the reply is visible to all users.

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 concise, with two short sentences. The first sentence introduces the purpose, and the second adds important detail. No fluff or redundancy.

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 an output schema (not shown but present), so the description does not need to explain return values. The tool has few parameters and straightforward behavior. The description covers the key behavioral aspect (auto-phrasing). It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., comment_id must exist) but remains fairly adequate.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'content' only indirectly via the auto-phrasing note, but does not describe the expected format or constraints (e.g., max length, allowed HTML). The 'comment_id' parameter is not described at all, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from context.

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 tool's purpose: 'Reply in an existing comment thread.' This is a specific verb (reply) and resource (comment). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'comment_on_post' (which likely creates a top-level comment) and 'get_comments'.

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 explicit guidance: 'Same substance rules as comment_on_post' implies consistency and references an alternative tool. 'Empty content → auto-phrase' clarifies behavior for empty input. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus others.

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