Reply to a comment

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds behavioral context by specifying the reply is 'public' and posted 'as the Page', but it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or whether the action can be undone. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 zero filler. Every word earns its place: the action, object, visibility, and actor are all conveyed efficiently.

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 three-parameter action tool, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and who it acts as. It does not describe return values (no output schema) or constraints like comment_id format, but those are minor gaps for this straightforward operation.

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 only 33% (only 'page' has a description). The main description hints at the roles of comment_id and message ('reply under a comment') and page ('as the Page'), but it does not provide format, constraints, or default behavior beyond the schema. It partially compensates for low schema coverage but does not fully clarify parameter semantics.

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 ('Post'), a precise resource ('a public reply under a comment'), and the acting identity ('as the Page'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like hide_comment, delete_comment, and create_post without needing to inspect schemas.

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 action is inherently clear, but the description never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as hide_comment or delete_comment. It also gives no context about prerequisites or edge cases, so usage is only implied by the tool's name and phrasing.

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