reply_to_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the side effect (reply added to thread), the re-query for post-state evidence, and the error condition. This is solid, though it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or audit-log behavior beyond naming audit_logged.

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 tightly structured: purpose, usage context, behavioral note, return evidence, and errors. Every section earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

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 covers purpose, usage, behavior, return values, and errors. The main missing piece is parameter-level guidance, especially doc_id, which prevents a perfect score.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely covers comment_id via "comment thread" and body via "empty body"; doc_id is never explained. Given all three parameters are undocumented in the schema, this is a significant gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Add a reply to an existing comment thread." It also distinguishes itself from resolution tools by saying the reply is added "without resolving it," which separates it clearly from sibling resolve_comment.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: "Use this tool when you need to respond to a reviewer comment without resolving it." It provides clear context and an implied alternative, though it does not name resolve_comment directly.

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