Reply to inbox item

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Reply...' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the inbox item is resolved, whether a notification is sent, or whether it can be used only once).

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, output schema, or parameter descriptions, this description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what itemId refers to, whether the reply overwrites an existing one, or how this differs from 'edit_inbox_reply'.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description adds no explicit meaning for 'itemId' or 'message'. Although parameter names are self-evident, the description does not clarify that itemId is the inbox item identifier or that message is the reply body.

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 ('Reply') and a resource ('a comment/mention/DM'), and the name/title ties it to inbox items. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'edit_inbox_reply' by implying creation of a new reply rather than modification.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as 'edit_inbox_reply' or 'create_comment'. The context is implied by the verb, but there are no exclusions or conditions.

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