facebook_reply_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely fails it. It does not state permission/auth requirements, whether the reply is publicly visible, whether it is reversible or deletable, or error behavior for an invalid comment_id — all relevant for a write operation.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the mutation and target resource are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though extremely terse.

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?

For a simple two-required-parameter write with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The absence of annotations means the behavior (auth, visibility, reversibility) should have been covered in text and is not, leaving a real gap.

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 100%: both comment_id and message are documented in the schema, so the description cannot add much. It maps correctly to the two parameters but contributes no format, ID-shape, or length constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (reply) and resource (an existing comment / sub-comment on a Facebook post), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like facebook_get_comments or facebook_hide_comment, so an agent must infer the boundary between replying and other comment operations.

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 phrase 'an existing comment' weakly implies a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as facebook_get_comments for reading, and no exclusions. The agent gets no routing information.

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