Edit inbox reply

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context the annotations cannot convey: only Facebook is supported and other platforms return a platform error. It still omits whether the message is fully replaced and what happens if the reply no longer 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?

A single sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the platform caveat immediately following. No filler, no redundancy.

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 three required, zero-documented parameters and no output schema, the description leaves the agent unsure how to obtain itemId/replyId or what a successful edit returns. Only the platform restriction is covered; the operational context is thin.

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% for all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and supplies nothing about itemId, replyId, or message. The field names are largely self-explanatory and 'message' has a minLength constraint in schema, but there is no guidance on sourcing the IDs or on overwrite 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?

States a specific verb+resource (editing an already-sent reply), which distinguishes it from reply_to_inbox_item (creating) and update_comment. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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 parenthetical clearly scopes applicability ('currently Facebook only'), which implicitly tells an agent when not to call it. However, it never names the alternative for creating a reply versus editing one, nor states prerequisites such as having obtained itemId/replyId via list_inbox.

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