seam_reply

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-destructive, idempotent write, but the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: the immediate visibility of the answer, the answered-note state change, dedup returning the earlier reply, the older-claim case returning late=true, and specific failure conditions (unknown/resolved note, empty text, >64 KiB).

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?

Front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by idempotency, edge case, and failure modes in a logical order. The prose is a dense run-on in places ('giving the claim seam_notes returned with it'), but nearly every clause carries operational information.

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 three-parameter mutation with an output schema already documenting return values, the description covers what changes, retry safety, concurrency/staleness, size limits, and error cases. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the 'late' flag.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning: 'claim' is a token obtained from seam_notes whose freshness determines whether the answer lands with the current taker or is marked late, and 'id' must refer to an unresolved note. That is real semantics beyond the bare schema strings.

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 and resource ('Answer a review note') plus the required claim from the sibling tool, and describes the visible effect (answer appears at the note's lines, note marked answered). An agent can distinguish this from seam_notes and seam_notes_view without opening 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?

Strong usage context: the claim must come from a prior seam_notes call, and retries after a lost answer are explicitly safe. It also explains the stale-claim scenario. It stops short of naming when to use a sibling instead (e.g., seam_notes_view for read-only inspection), so it is clear but not exhaustively routed.

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