Auf Kommentar antworten

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'replies to an existing comment,' implying a write operation, but it does not mention permissions, whether the reply is immediately published, reversibility, error handling for non-existent comments, or any side effects. This is insufficient 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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the action and target. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word serves a purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it is minimal.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. While the low complexity and rich schema mitigate some gaps, the absence of when-to-use and effect information makes it only minimally 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with high detail ('content' as 'Antwort-Inhalt' and 'commentId' as 'Kommentar-ID auf den geantwortet wird'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Antwortet auf' (replies to) and identifies the resource 'bestehenden Kommentar' (existing comment), which clearly indicates the action and target. It implies a distinction from comment_create (which likely creates new top-level comments), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like comment_create or comment_update. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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