reply_post

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 communicates the core reply behavior and the parent-identifier prerequisite, but says nothing about permissions required, side effects on the thread, behavior when the parent post doesn't exist, or what the response contains.

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 with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded ('Reply to a Bluesky post') and the second sentence earns its place by stating the critical data prerequisite.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisite and schema covers the parameters, but the agent is left without guidance on auth requirements or any behavioral context beyond the mechanics of a reply.

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 five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by telling the agent where parent_uri and parent_cid come from, but does not clarify root_uri/root_cid semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Reply to a Bluesky post'), which is immediately distinct from the sibling create_post. It also specifies the required identifiers (parent URI + CID), pinning down exactly what operation is being performed.

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 a clear prerequisite and points the agent to where to source the required identifiers ('get from search or get_post'). However, it never explicitly contrasts with create_post or states when not to use this tool, leaving the when-to-use guidance partially implicit.

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