threads_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral difference between text and media replies, and the auto_publish parameter description adds context about race conditions. Missing details on failure modes or auth requirements.

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 sentences that quickly convey purpose and key behavioral nuance. No fluff, front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

The description does not mention return values or error handling. While the existence of sibling tools like threads_get_container_status may mitigate this, a more complete description would clarify the output format.

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 adds some value by explaining the auto_publish behavior, but does not elaborate on reply_to_id or text beyond the schema definitions.

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 Threads post or another reply, distinguishing it from siblings like threads_publish_text (publish new post) and threads_get_replies (get replies). It also highlights the behavioral difference between text and media replies.

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 explains when to use the single-call flow (text replies) vs two-step flow (media replies), and mentions the auto_publish parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives for other platforms.

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