reply_to_channel_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 mentions behavioral traits like supporting text/markdown formatting, mentions, and importance levels, but lacks critical details such as permission requirements, rate limits, whether replies are editable/deletable, or how replies appear in the channel. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key features. It avoids redundancy, but could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from capabilities for clarity.

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's complexity (11 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover error conditions, response format, or important behavioral aspects like side effects or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps for agent usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at features like formatting and mentions, but does not provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Reply to a specific message in a channel') and resource ('message'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'send_channel_message' (which creates new messages) and 'get_channel_message_replies' (which retrieves replies). It specifies the reply targets a particular message via messageId.

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 mentioning 'reply to a specific message' and listing supported features, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_channel_message' (for new messages) or 'create_chat' (for private chats). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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