⚠️ Reply to a review

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns that the answer is PUBLIC and visible to everyone after moderation, which is critical for the agent to understand consequences. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, add a warning, and specify requirements. No unnecessary 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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions return values (id and timestamp). It covers the required parameters, provides a warning about public visibility, references sibling tools for context, and includes a usage instruction. This is complete for a mutation tool with good schema coverage.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions reviewId from reviews_get_reviews_v1 and message text, but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. The dryRun and idempotencyKey parameters are not covered in the description.

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 tool publishes a seller answer to a review, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing reviews_remove_review_answer_v1 for deletion and reviews_get_reviews_v1 for obtaining the reviewId, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Confirm the action with the user', providing a usage guideline to require user confirmation. It also directs to the deletion tool for when an answer needs to be removed, making the when-to-use vs when-not-to-use clear.

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