reply_to_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds that the operation 'Costs 50 quota units', which is valuable context about resource consumption. However, it doesn't describe other important behaviors: whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Reply' but not explicit), what permissions are required, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. The quota information is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the core purpose ('Reply to a comment') comes first, followed by the quota cost, then parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place - the quota information is valuable, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the 0% schema coverage. However, the formatting with 'Args:' could be more integrated into natural language.

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 that there's an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a mutating tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and 2 parameters, the description should do more: it lacks information about error conditions, side effects, or relationship to sibling tools. The quota cost information is helpful but doesn't compensate for other gaps. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline but not enough for a higher score.

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 compensate. It provides basic explanations for both parameters ('parent_comment_id: The comment ID to reply to' and 'text: Reply text'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, these explanations are minimal - they don't specify format requirements for the comment ID, length limits for the text, or any validation rules. For a tool with 2 parameters and zero schema documentation, this is inadequate compensation.

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 ('Reply to') and resource ('a comment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_comment' (which might create top-level comments) and 'delete_comment' by specifying it's specifically for replying to existing comments. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible alternatives like 'update_comment' if that existed.

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 when to choose 'reply_to_comment' over 'add_comment' (which appears to be a sibling tool), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an existing comment to reply to. The only contextual hint is the parameter 'parent_comment_id', but this isn't explained in usage terms.

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