interactions_create_followup

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond annotations: auth requires a token but 'NO bot token', the body mirrors a webhook execute body, the ephemeral flag behavior, and the return shape {message_id, channel_id}. This adds significant operational context.

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 well-structured with bolded labels (Purpose, Auth, Body, Returns). Every sentence contributes: purpose, auth, body semantics, ephemeral flag, and return value. No filler 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?

For a tool with 12 parameters and nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: when to use, auth, body semantics, and returns. It relies on the schema for parameter details and the output schema for return structure, which is acceptable. It could go deeper on edge cases, but it is sufficiently complete for invocation.

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 only 33%, so the description partially compensates by noting the body 'mirrors a webhook execute body' and by explaining the ephemeral parameter's effect. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but does not elaborate on the remaining parameters individually.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Send a follow-up message after an interaction has been acknowledged.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like interactions_create_response (initial response) and messages_send (non-interaction messaging) by specifying timing and context.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Useful for long-running work where you replied with a deferred response.' This gives clear context, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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