reply_to_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the reply_all behavior but does not mention authentication requirements (account/password), whether the reply is sent immediately, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficiently 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds specific guidance on reply_all. No wasted words.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not address how body_text and body_html interact, the format of attachments, or the purpose of account and password fields. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 0%, meaning the description does not elaborate on most parameters. It only explains reply_all. While message_id is self-explanatory, parameters like account, password, body_text vs body_html, and attachments are not described, leaving ambiguity.

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 'Reply to a message, keeping it in the same thread,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like forward_message (which creates new threads) and send_email (new messages).

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 implies usage context by noting 'keeping it in the same thread,' which suggests when not to use (e.g., for creating new threads). However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like forward_message or send_draft, nor does it provide clear exclusions.

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