Reply to review

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

Annotations already declare write, destructive, open-world and non-idempotent, and the description adds real consequence: the reply is public on the business's Fresha page and the client is notified, plus who it is signed as. It falls short of explaining the non-idempotent/destructive angle — e.g. whether a second reply replaces the first or stacks — which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the action and its audience. The middle sentence ('as Reply in Online reputation does') is slightly redundant framing that could be cut, but nothing else is wasted.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the audience, the prerequisite and the identity option. The only real omission is what the call returns and what happens on a repeat reply.

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%, so all three parameters (text, reply_id, reply_as enum) are already documented in the schema, including the enum meanings and the list_reviews provenance. The description restates signing-as-both rather than adding syntax, limits, or edge cases 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Post a public reply to a client's review') with the write target and visibility stated up front. It is clearly distinct from list_reviews and the rest of the sibling set, which are read/list or scheduling tools.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite chain: 'It needs a review that exists: take review_id from list_reviews,' which routes the agent to the sibling that produces the required input. It does not state any when-not-to-use conditions, but no competing reply tool exists.

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