Reply on Reddit

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It discloses that the reply publishes PUBLICLY and immediately, requires explicit user approval, and warns about brand reputation and potential subreddit bans. Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds critical behavioral context (public visibility, approval requirement, consequences) that the agent must know. No contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core action, then immediately addresses the most critical safety requirement (approval), then adds brand-risk context, then clarifies parameters, then points to the sibling, and finishes with cost and prerequisites. The structure is logical and efficient, with no filler.

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?

The description is complete for a mutation tool with public impact. It covers what the tool does, prerequisites (Reddit connected), the exact parameter format, how to obtain the correct parentId, the requirement for user approval, and the reputational consequences. There is no output schema, but the description fully equips an agent to call this tool 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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful clarification for parentId, emphasizing that it must be a FULLNAME (t3_/t1_) and pointing to list_reddit_comments as the source. This reinforces the schema but also provides sourcing guidance that an agent would not get from the schema alone. For text, it advises plain language and avoiding marketing copy, which is behavioral guidance rather than syntax.

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 tool's function: replying to Reddit comments or creating top-level comments. It explicitly distinguishes between replying to a post (t3_) and a comment (t1_), which sets it apart from sibling tools like post_to_reddit or edit_reddit_post. The verb 'Reply' and resource 'Reddit' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: it's for replies, requires showing the user exact wording and getting explicit approval, and needs the Reddit account connected. It also points to list_reddit_comments as the source for the correct parentId. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., use post_to_reddit for new posts), but the top-level vs. reply distinction implies this, and the approval requirement is a strong usage guideline.

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