Create Topic Reply

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds context about nesting behavior but does not disclose additional traits like auth requirements or confirmation responses. It adds modest value beyond annotations.

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 sentences, direct and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies the key parameter nuance. No wasted words.

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 creation tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, the description covers the essential action and nesting nuance. It could mention what the response contains (e.g., reply ID), but without an output schema, this is acceptable.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's info for reply_to_id ('omit for a top-level reply') and mentions 'plain text only' for body, which is already in the schema. No new semantic information is added 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 clearly states the tool creates a reply to a discussion topic, distinguishing it from creating topics (topic_create) or listing replies (topic_replies). It uses specific verbs and resources, and the nesting behavior differentiates from sibling tools.

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 clear guidance on when to use the reply_to_id parameter (for nested replies) and when to omit it (top-level reply). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the sibling set implies it's for replies only.

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