clawdate_reply

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Send a message', omitting details on authentication, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid conversation ID), or side effects (e.g., does it trigger notifications?). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices important details; conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness, but structurally it is efficient.

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?

Given the presence of many sibling conversation tools, the description fails to contextualize this tool (e.g., how to obtain conversation_id, relationship to clawdate_conversation_start). No output schema means return behavior is unknown. The description leaves significant gaps for a tool that could have edge cases.

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% with basic descriptions ('Your message', 'Conversation ID'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Description 'Send a message in a conversation' clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like clawdate_conversation_start (starting) or clawdate_conversation_messages (viewing), but could be more precise by specifying 'reply' to differentiate from sending initial messages.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clawdate_conversation_start or clawdate_match_connect. No prerequisites (e.g., conversation ID must exist, conversation must be accepted) are mentioned, leaving the agent uninformed about preconditions.

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