reply_to_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly highlights that it is a write operation (mutation) and that the reply is publicly visible and threaded. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects, so it is only partially transparent.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences, no fluff, and the most important information front-loaded. 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, effects, and return value. It is missing prerequisites or error conditions, but given the low complexity and existing schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds that the reply is threaded and returns a comment ID, but this is marginal additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3.

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 action ('Reply to a comment on a post'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hide_comment or like_comment, so it loses one point for lacking sibling differentiation.

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 context that it is a write operation and that the reply is threaded and publicly visible, but it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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