Edit inbox reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavior: non-Facebook platforms return an error. But for a mutation tool, it fails to disclose consequences like irreversibility, permission requirements, or whether the original message is overwritten, which is inadequate for safe invocation.

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 that front-loads the action and adds a critical platform constraint in a parenthetical. Every word is necessary; there is 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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, this description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, side effects, and any prerequisites or return information, leaving an agent to guess critical invocation details.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter details. The parameter names (itemId, replyId, message) are somewhat self-explanatory, but without any definition, an agent must infer the distinction between itemId and replyId and the expected format of message. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Edit'), resource ('a reply already sent'), and scope ('currently Facebook only'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling reply_to_inbox_item which sends a new reply. The platform limitation is also specified.

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 gives clear context: it edits an existing reply and is currently Facebook-only, with other platforms returning an error. This implies the tool is for modifying sent replies rather than creating them, and explicitly excludes non-Facebook platforms, though it does not name alternative tools directly.

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