reply_to_comment

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation ('Reply') and a required scope, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new thread), permissions beyond scope, or return value. With no annotations, this is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and follows with the key requirement. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate but missing context about return values or error handling. No output schema exists, so the description should clarify what the tool returns on success, but it does not.

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?

The schema covers parent_id with a helpful description, but text is only described by minLength. The tool description does not add any explanation for the 'text' parameter (e.g., that it is the reply content). Given 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 a top-level comment.' It specifies the resource (top-level comment) and the scope requirement, distinguishing it from other comment-related tools like moderate_comment or list_comments.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., moderate_comment for moderation). It only mentions a required scope, which is a prerequisite but not usage context. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are stated.

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