Reply to anything in the inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:false and destructiveHint:false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: public/private posting behavior, routing to the correct channel, the X exception, and the need for user approval beforehand. It does not contradict annotations, though it omits auth or rate-limit details, which are not hinted in annotations either.

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 slightly long but well-structured, front-loading the most critical information (composite ID and routing) before explaining behavioral nuances. Each sentence carries operational weight, with no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: ID format, routing, public/private visibility, exception handling, and the mandatory approval step. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the composite ID structure with examples ('facebook:123_456', 'google_business:accounts/1/locations/2/reviews/3') and clarifying that a bare platform id is refused. This adds valuable semantic depth for the id parameter; text is straightforward as defined.

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 ('Answer') and resource ('inbox item'), and uniquely identifies the ID format ('composite ID') with concrete examples. It clearly distinguishes this tool from platform-specific reply siblings by emphasizing that it routes to the correct channel automatically, so an agent understands it is the universal reply entry point.

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 usage context: the reply is posted as the brand, is PUBLIC on most sources and PRIVATE on the two DM sources, and requires user go-ahead. It names the one exception (X) and directs to post_to_x instead, providing a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guide.

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