ig_direct_reply_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the message is not sent, but does not mention other important behaviors such as whether it saves drafts, requires authentication, or is idempotent. Limited 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It earns its place but is perhaps too brief for a tool with complex sibling relationships. No waste, but could include more useful details.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address authentication, error conditions, or the relationship with sibling tools like ig_direct_reply_confirm. An agent would lack crucial context.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It names two parameters (text and conversation_id) by implication but provides no additional details about constraints (e.g., maxLength, format) or semantics beyond what is obvious from the parameter names.

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 states 'Prepare a reply in Direct; the message is not sent yet.' It clearly identifies the tool's verb (prepare) and resource (reply in Direct), and the phrase 'not sent yet' hints at the distinction from sending tools like ig_direct_reply_confirm. However, 'prepare' is somewhat vague, lacking specifics on what preparation entails.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implicitly indicates it is a pre-send step, but does not elaborate on context or prerequisites. The sibling ig_direct_reply_confirm suggests a two-step process, but the description does not clarify the workflow.

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