reply_notification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that this is a mutating reply, that it avoids opening the app, and that Buddy shows the user an approval card with the text first unless confirm was just called. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens if the reply cannot be delivered, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by preconditions and the approval caveat. Dense but every clause earns its place; the 'unless you called confirm' caveat is essential context rather than padding.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, preconditions, the approval flow, and the confirm interaction. It is largely complete; only edge-case failure behavior is left unspecified, which is minor here.

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% and the single parameter 'text' is clearly documented as 'The reply, exactly as it should be sent.' The description references 'the text' shown on the approval card but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it answers the notification that started the chat via the notification's own reply field, and clarifies it does so 'without opening the app.' An agent can distinguish this from general messaging or app interaction siblings instantly.

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?

It gives explicit preconditions: 'Only in chats started by one of the user's notification rules, when the notification has a reply field,' and it names the alternative workflow ('unless you called confirm with it just before'). Both when-to-use and when-the-approval-is-skipped are covered.

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