reply_to_review

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the reply is public, live immediately, replaces prior replies, and has a character limit. It also includes a safety prompt to confirm with the user, which is not covered by the destructive annotation.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by critical behavioral notes. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers behavioral aspects well (public, immediate, destructive, character limit) but neglects parameter meanings, which are essential for correct invocation given the lack of schema descriptions. This gap is significant for a mutation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for missing parameter details. It only mentions the max 350 characters for reply_text but doesn't explain review_id or package_name, leaving two required/optional parameters undocumented.

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 verb (publishes) and resource (public developer reply), and specifies that it replaces any earlier reply. No sibling tool performs this action, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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?

It gives a clear usage constraint: 'confirm the text with the user first' and notes the max 350 characters. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, but since it's the only reply tool, that's less critical.

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