reply_forum_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dry_run safety behavior, that it validates without posting, and that it returns a JSON with a validated status and postid when posted. It lacks details on auth, error cases, or side effects, but the most critical behavioral traits are covered.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear note on dry_run, an Args list, and a Returns line. No wasted words; 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 4-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, dry_run behavior, and return value. It is missing potential error handling or permission notes, but the core usage is complete. Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, this is sufficient.

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 description must explain all parameters. It does: post_id is 'the ID of the post being replied to (parent)', subject and message are self-explanatory, and dry_run is described as 'If True (default), validate without posting.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles and fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reply to an existing forum post.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_forum_discussion (creation) and list_forum_discussions (listing). It also specifies the action's scope ('existing') with no ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly states the dry_run default and how to switch to actual posting ('Set dry_run=False to actually post'). This gives clear context on when to use the tool in validation vs. live mode. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool (e.g., for new discussions), though that is implied by 'existing.'

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