Reply drafting

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

The description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the annotations: 'Costs credits from the account wallet.' It also states that the output includes both a reply and an internal note, which is useful context. No contradiction with the annotations was found.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core transformation and output, then adds the important credit-cost caveat. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant restating of the title or schema.

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 is adequate for a five-parameter drafting tool: it names the input type, indicates the output shape, and flags a cost side effect. However, with no output schema and no mention of how the internal note is returned or what happens on low wallet balance, some operational detail is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond mapping 'thread plus context' and 'right tone' to the corresponding parameters, and it does not clarify the meaning or defaults for goal or senderName.

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 identifies the tool's function: turning a customer thread plus context into a ready-to-send reply with the right tone and an internal agent note. It is distinct from review or rewrite tools by emphasizing 'ready-to-send' drafting, though it does not explicitly compare itself to any sibling.

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 the tool should be used when a reply draft is needed from a thread and context, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention alternatives like review_reply or rewrite for follow-up steps, leaving the selection logic mostly to inference.

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