ig_reply_to_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool replies to a comment; it does not mention permissions, whether the reply is immediately published, side effects, or any constraints around replying.

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 with no filler. The essential action is stated directly and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so full return-value documentation is not required. However, the description lacks usage conditions, parameter hints, and differentiation from sibling tools, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. While 'comment_id' and 'message' are somewhat self-explanatory from their names, the description adds no additional meaning, format guidance, or source for the comment_id.

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 uses a specific verb 'Répond' and names the resource 'un commentaire Instagram', making the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'reply_to_comment', relying mostly on the 'ig' prefix in the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reply_to_comment', 'ig_delete_comment', or other Instagram comment tools. An agent is left to infer the correct context from the tool name alone.

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