send_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing two key side effects: the ticket is marked resolved and the ticket 'ends.' This goes beyond the schema and alerts the agent that the action is terminal. It could add whether this is reversible, but 'ends the ticket' is a strong enough warning.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the precondition follows, and the terminal consequence is stated last. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple three-parameter terminal action, the description covers purpose, precondition, and side effects. There is no output schema, but for a send-and-resolve action the description provides enough to call it correctly. Missing response details are a minor gap given the action's simplicity.

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 67%, with body and citations already described. The description adds only indirect guidance that the reply should be grounded in documentation and customer data, which relates to citations. It does not add meaningful field-level semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 a specific action ('Send the final reply') and resource ('to the customer'), plus the consequential effect ('mark the ticket resolved'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ticket or create_escalation, which serve different lifecycle stages.

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 gives an explicit precondition: 'Call this only when the answer is fully grounded in documentation and customer data.' It also signals terminality ('This ends the ticket'), implying this should be the last step after lookup_customer and search_docs. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the usage context is clear.

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