qzone_reply_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, permission requirements, whether the reply is posted immediately, idempotency, or error behavior. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.

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 a single short sentence with no redundant words and is immediately clear in its core action. However, it is arguably too terse relative to the complexity of the tool, trusting the agent to infer too much from a minimal phrase.

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?

This is a mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation. The description provides only the basic action and leaves the agent without enough information about required identifiers, return behavior, or constraints, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 0%, yet the description provides no parameter explanations. Parameter names like hostuin, fid, commentid, and comment_uin are only partially self-explanatory and would be ambiguous without QQ/QZone domain knowledge. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clear verb ('回复' / reply) and a specific resource ('一条说说评论' / a comment on a status), so an agent can understand the core action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling qzone_comment, but the object being replied to is specific enough for basic purpose clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qzone_comment, qzone_like, or qzone_delete. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, so the agent must infer usage solely from the verb and resource.

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