post_comment_reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Post' conveys a mutation, but the description provides no additional context about side effects (e.g., whether a new resource is created), permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. It is not contradictory, but it is minimal.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant words. It is appropriately concise without unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., the comment must exist in the specified space), or error conditions. The one-liner is a bare minimum and insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional inference.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reinforces that commentId refers to an existing comment. The schema already explains all parameters adequately.

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 action ('Post a reply') and the resource ('an existing comment'), making it distinct from sibling tools like post_comment (which would create a new top-level comment) and list_comment_replies. The verb is specific and the resource is unambiguous.

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 usage: when you have an existing comment and want to reply to it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., post_comment for new comments). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance or exclusions.

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