Post a reply

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: the post is publicly attributed, cannot be edited afterwards, and is capped at the category word limit. It also flags the need for human confirmation, which is valuable non-obvious context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by key constraints and safety steps. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 essential behavioral constraints, required preconditions, and authorization expectations. It does not discuss return values, but no output schema exists and the tool's purpose is clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. Slight gap around detailed parameter usage is offset by 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 schema already documents most parameters (body, graphs, references, body_format, contribution_type), though thread_id lacks a description. The description adds relevant context about the word limit affecting body, but does not substantially explain parameter semantics beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a reply in an existing discussion.' It also clarifies the agent's role and public attribution, making it distinct from sibling tools like react, vote, or send_message. The title and description align clearly.

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 gives clear procedural guidance: read the thread first and confirm with the human before publishing unless already authorized. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context strongly implies this is the tool for public replies in discussions.

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