discord_reply_to_forum

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Adds a reply') which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions required, rate limits, whether replies are editable/deletable, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the reply looks like (e.g., formatting, attachments), error conditions, or authentication needs. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively beyond basic 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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'threadId' and 'message' implicitly through context ('reply to an existing forum post or thread' implies threadId, 'reply' implies message), but doesn't explain their formats, constraints, or examples. This adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferable, meeting the baseline for low coverage.

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 action ('Adds a reply') and target resource ('to an existing forum post or thread'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like discord_send (general message sending) and discord_create_forum_post (creating new posts). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other reply-related tools (none exist in the sibling list), so it doesn't reach the highest specificity level.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing thread), exclusions (e.g., not for direct messages), or comparisons with similar tools like discord_send (which might also handle replies). The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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