Reply to a Facebook/Instagram comment

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

Discloses a critical non-obvious behavior: the reply is PUBLIC and posted as the brand, requiring user approval. Annotations only indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false); they do not capture the public-facing nature or the approval workflow. This is a substantial value-add beyond annotations.

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, the first stating the core action and scope, the second adding the crucial public/approval constraint. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence 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 tool with a well-covered schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and usage context. Minor gap: it does not explicitly mention that commentId should come from list_meta_comments, but that is already in the schema description. Overall complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds a workflow note about showing exact wording, which subtly touches on the 'message' parameter, but it does not explain individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('post a public reply') and resource ('a comment on the brand's Facebook or Instagram post'). This distinguishes it from siblings like comment_on_meta_post (which comments on a post) and reply_to_inbox_item (inbox replies), making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides clear context: it is for replying to comments on brand posts, and requires showing the wording to the user first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the purpose statement strongly implies when it applies, which is adequate.

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