sage_message_reply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It discloses that the claimant session is checked in the same transaction and that retries are idempotent while conflicting replies occur, which is valuable. However, it does not specify what happens on conflict (error? overwrite?) or other potential side effects, so it is not fully transparent.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose, then adds key behavioral details. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: input source, idempotency, and transaction completion. It does not describe return values, but there is no output schema to supplement, so it is reasonably complete for the context. Could mention conflict handling or failure modes, but overall adequate.

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 50% (result is described as 'Untrusted result data returned to the sender', message_id lacks a schema description). The description adds that message_id comes from specific tools and that the result is untrusted, but it does not elaborate on formats or constraints beyond the schema. It partially compensates for the missing schema description but not fully.

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 tool's function: 'Reply to one receiver-local or inbound federated message_id returned by sage_messages_receive or sage_inbox.' It specifies the action (reply), the resource (message), and differentiates from sibling tools like sage_message_send and sage_message_replies by focusing on replying to received messages.

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 mentions that the message IDs come from specific tools (sage_messages_receive or sage_inbox), guiding the user on the appropriate input source. It also describes idempotency and conflict conditions, helping users understand retry behavior. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or when to use them, so it falls short of a 5.

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