create_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: if output_path is omitted, the tool creates a timestamped backup and overwrites the original file, which is critical for understanding the destructive action. It also describes the returned dictionary fields. While permissions or error handling are absent, the backup behavior adds significant value, warranting a 4.

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 concise: a one-line purpose sentence, a structured Args list, and a Returns section. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently organized for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 3 required, modifies a file) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter meanings, behavioral nuance (backup on overwrite), and return format. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly without external context.

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, so the description must explain all parameters fully. The Args section details each parameter's purpose (path, parent_comment_id, reply_text, author with default, output_path with behavior). This completely compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, earning the maximum score.

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 explicitly states 'Add a reply to an existing comment in a Word document,' which clearly identifies the action (adding a reply) and the resource (existing comment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_comment (which creates a new comment) and accept_change (which handles track changes), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by requiring 'parent_comment_id' (an existing comment), providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_comment or mark_comment_resolved, leaving some inference needed. A score of 4 reflects good but not exhaustive guidance.

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