reply_to_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the permission requirement, which is useful context, but lacks details on other behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon success (e.g., whether the reply is public or private). This leaves gaps in transparency 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key requirement without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the action and permission need but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error cases, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive for an agent's needs.

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 input schema already fully documents the parameters (comment_id and message). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints not in the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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 to') and target ('a specific comment on an Instagram post'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'post_comment' or 'reply_to_comment' (if present), which might handle similar actions, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.

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 context by specifying the required permission ('instagram_manage_comments'), which indicates when to use this tool based on access rights. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when not to use it versus other comment-related tools like 'post_comment', so it falls short of explicit guidance on alternatives.

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