Social 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 key behavioral constraint: only top-level comments can be replied to, and replying to a reply must target the top-level parent. It also implies the action is a write operation (reply) and mentions the active session context. It does not detail side effects like notifications or rate limits, but the nesting constraint is the most critical behavioral trait and is clearly disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides the critical nesting constraint. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's core use case: it explains the action, the target resources, the active session context, and the critical parent_id constraint. It doesn't describe the return value, but an output schema exists, so that is not required. It also doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid parent_id), but the guidance on using social_get_comments mitigates that gap. Overall, it is well-rounded for a social action tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between parent_id and the top-level nesting rule, which is not fully captured in the schema's brief 'Id of the top-level comment being replied to.' It also clarifies the source_id semantics indirectly by mentioning project/studio/profile. The commentee_id parameter is well-documented in the schema, and the description doesn't need to repeat it.

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 to an existing comment on a project, studio or profile, as the active session.' It identifies the resource (comments on project/studio/profile) and the specific verb (reply). It also distinguishes itself from related tools like social_post_comment and social_get_comment_replies by focusing on replying to 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool and how to avoid a common pitfall: it explains that parent_id must be a top-level comment id, that Scratch only supports one level of nesting, and that social_get_comments reports is_top_level and parent_id so the agent can pick the right id. This is actionable usage guidance that goes beyond a simple statement of purpose.

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