reply-to-comment

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

The description discloses the quota cost of 50 units and the constraint that the parent must be an existing top-level comment, but it does not describe other behavioral aspects such as permission requirements, side effects, or failure behavior. With no annotations to fall back on, this is moderate 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the key action and cost are both stated directly.

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 tool is simple with two parameters, and the description covers what it does, the cost, and the target constraint. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke, though it could mention side effects or response behavior if applicable.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both text and parentId, so the description needs no additional parameter guidance. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Reply to an existing top-level comment'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create-comment-thread and update-comment.

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 implies usage by specifying the target as an existing top-level comment, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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