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 conveys that the tool performs a reply action but does not mention permissions, side effects, failure modes, or whether the reply is public, which matters for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no fluff; it states the core action and platform scope efficiently. It lacks some content, but this dimension measures waste, and there is none.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too thin: it does not address the relationship to ig_reply_to_comment, how a comment ID is resolved, or permission requirements. The output schema covers return values, but the missing operational context leaves an agent guessing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the description, the agent must infer that comment_id identifies the target and message is the reply text. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema titles and does not compensate for the empty parameter documentation.

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 (reply) and the resource (comment), and scopes it to Facebook or Instagram. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling ig_reply_to_comment, which is the Instagram-specific version, so it stops short of full sibling discrimination.

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 about when to choose this tool over ig_reply_to_comment, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only contextual signal is the platform scope, which is not enough to route an agent correctly among the comment-related siblings.

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