Reply to a reporter

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only (false) and non-destructive (false). The description adds value by specifying that the reply appears as an admin comment in the in-app Mushi widget and creates an unread notification badge, providing behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and effect. Every sentence adds value: first defines action, second explains UI impact, third gives usage scenarios. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral effects adequately for a simple tool with complete schema annotations. However, since there is no output schema, it would be beneficial to mention what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation), but this is a minor gap.

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%: all three parameters (reportId, message, authorName) are described in the schema. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'send' and resource 'visible message to the end-user who filed a bug report'. It also details the effect (appears in widget, creates notification) and provides concrete use cases (answer questions, request repro, confirm fix), distinguishing it from sibling tools that are read-only or state-changing.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to...' and gives clear contexts (answering, requesting repro, confirming fix). It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough given the sibling list; no other tool performs this write action.

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