Reply to review

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the real-world consequences: the reply is publicly visible on the profile, the reviewer is notified, and a second call overwrites the prior reply. This adds genuine context to destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, though it says nothing about permissions, moderation, or failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the operational detail and side effects, with no filler. The phrase 'the way the Reviews page does' is the only sentence that contributes little beyond analogy.

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 with no output schema, the description covers what it does, where it lands, its visibility, and its overwrite behavior. Only permissions and error/edge behavior are unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the pointer to list_reviews for review_id. The description adds only the notion that the reply attaches to a single review, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb pair (post/change) and resource (public reply to a client's review), plus the target surface (Booksy profile). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_reviews, which the schema also references for obtaining the review_id.

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 implies when to use it (to publish or edit an existing reply) and that a repeat call replaces the previous reply, but it never explicitly routes the agent away from alternatives or states prerequisites such as obtaining review_id first. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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