intercom_reply

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true). The description adds behavior the annotations can't convey: the reply inherits the original team and that team cannot be overridden, which is a meaningful constraint on how the call should be formed.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The action and its object are front-loaded, and the inheritance constraint follows immediately, so an agent gets purpose and key rule in one pass.

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 destructive, non-idempotent write tool with no output schema and no annotations on team, the description covers purpose, selector sourcing, and the team constraint well. It leaves some behavioral detail unstated (e.g., what a 'destructive' reply actually changes, or response/pagination behavior), but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 83%, so the schema baseline carries most parameters (to, which). The description still adds value: it ties askId/contextId to their source in intercom_pending and reinforces the team parameter's immutable-inheritance semantics beyond the schema's terse 'omit to inherit'.

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 (Reply) plus its target (an inbound ask or ordinary message) and identifies the exact selectors to use (askId/contextId from intercom_pending). This scope — responding to an existing inbound thread — is clearly distinct from the create-new-message siblings like intercom_send or intercom_ask without having to open a schema.

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 context for use and, crucially, tells the agent where the askId/contextId values come from (intercom_pending), which is a real precondition. It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use this (e.g., for starting a fresh thread), so it stops short of explicit routing.

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