respond_to_inquiry_entry

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the action of submitting, the dependency on upload_attachment for attachments, the state change from PENDING to WAITING_FOR_REVIEW, and the flexible input (either attachment IDs, free-text, or both). It does not cover authentication or rate limits but provides sufficient behavioral context for a non-destructive action.

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?

Three sentences, each adding essential information: first states the action, second describes input options, third specifies pre/post conditions. No extraneous words.

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 covers the tool's purpose, required input (with flexibility), preconditions (entry must be PENDING), postcondition (WAITING_FOR_REVIEW), and a dependency (upload_attachment). It does not explain return values, which is acceptable given no output 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that 'answer' and 'all_attachment_id' can be used together or separately ('Provide either attachment IDs... or a free-text answer, or both'). This explains the optionality not explicit in 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 clearly states the tool submits an answer for an inquiry entry, with a specific verb ('Submits') and resource ('inquiry entry on behalf of Eva'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_user_inquiries or get_user_inquiry by focusing on the response action.

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 clear usage context: 'Only PENDING entries can be answered' and states the outcome ('entry moves to WAITING_FOR_REVIEW'). It implicitly advises when to use (when entry is pending) but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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