add_reply

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

The description adds the useful context that the reply is visible to the requestor, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as potential email notifications, irreversibility, or status changes beyond what the destructiveHint annotation implies. The annotation covers the destructive nature, so the description's contribution is modest but non-contradictory.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, efficiently conveying the action, resource, and visibility scope.

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 has six parameters and no output schema, the description is brief but sufficient for selection because the schema thoroughly documents parameter semantics. The key differentiator (visibility to requestor) is present, though it does not mention optional capabilities like status changes or time logging that are described in the schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, including detailed explanations of attachment handling and optional fields. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 verb ('Send') and resource ('a reply on a ticket'), with the scope 'visible to the requestor' distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_comment. This is a precise, non-redundant statement of the tool's core function.

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 phrase 'visible to the requestor' provides clear context for when to use this tool (customer-facing correspondence) versus internal notes, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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