intercom_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the surface action and a hint about parameter usage; it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the ask is marked as resolved), any authentication requirements, or what happens on success or failure. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences long, with the main purpose in the first sentence and a specific usage tip in the second. Every word is necessary, and the structure is front-loaded and scannable.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a required parameter not described in the schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what qualifies as a 'pending inbound ask,' the outcome of replying, or what the 'message' parameter expects, making the tool incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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 describes 'to' and 'which' (67% coverage). The description adds a useful note about combining them for multiple unresolved asks, which slightly goes beyond the schema. However, the required 'message' parameter remains completely undescribed in both schema and description, limiting the added value.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Reply to a pending inbound ask.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like intercom_send (which likely initiates new messages) and intercom_pending (which likely lists pending asks). The scope is well-defined.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: replying to pending inbound asks. It also gives specific guidance on using 'to' and 'which' when a sender has multiple unresolved asks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for sending new messages, so it lacks exclusions but is still clear.

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