intercom_reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'reply to a pending inbound ask' without detailing behavior like whether it creates a new message, modifies the ask, or requires specific permissions. 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 very short with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. It is concise, but could benefit from slightly more detail without excessive length.

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 no output schema and a simple action, the description is somewhat complete for the core purpose but lacks context on the outcome of replying (e.g., whether it sends immediately, thread behavior). It does not address error cases or prerequisites.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description only hints that 'to' and 'reply_to' can be omitted under a condition, but does not explain their meaning or format. For a tool with three parameters, this is inadequate.

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 it replies to a pending inbound ask, which conveys the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like intercom_ask (asking) and intercom_send (sending messages) by specifying 'reply' to a pending ask, but could further clarify what constitutes an 'ask'.

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 a useful guideline: when exactly one ask is pending, 'to' and 'reply_to' can be omitted. This helps the agent decide how to use the tool efficiently. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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