reply_to_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, error cases (e.g., invalid conversation_id), or mutability. The org_id parameter fallback is noted, but overall behavioral context is thin for a mutating tool.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. Clearly states the purpose and scope. 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 the tool has an output schema (not shown) and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers the core action adequately. However, a brief note on error/state changes would improve completeness for a mutating 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds minor context (conversation_id from list_inbox, account_id from social accounts, org_id fallback), but does not significantly enhance beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 replies to a social media DM/message in an existing conversation, specifying supported platforms (Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'send_shipping_info' or 'ai_reply_suggestion'.

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 mentions 'existing conversation' and lists required parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'ai_reply_suggestion' or provide constraints (e.g., only for direct messages, not public posts). No when-not or exclusions given.

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