reply_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the in-thread routing behavior but omits effects such as whether a thread must already exist, who the reply is sent as, error behavior, or whether it mutates state.

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, front-loading the core action and routing behavior. It has no wasted words, though it sacrifices detail.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 4 undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse to enable confident tool invocation. It provides no return expectations, prerequisites, or parameter formats.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning of from, text, priority, or message_id. 'Reply' and 'original sender' vaguely imply text and message_id, but the optional parameters and their constraints are left undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reply') and identifies the resource/context ('in-thread') plus a behavioral outcome ('routes back to the original sender'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic messaging siblings like post_message or chat_say.

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?

No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are provided. The description implies a reply scenario but does not state when to prefer this over post_message or browser_send_message, leaving the AI to infer.

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