bili_comment_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that replies require separate permission that defaults off and that there is no force override, but it omits other important behavior such as side effects, failure modes, or rate limits for a write action.

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 compact and front-loads the main action and scope. The semicolon-separated fragments are efficient, though 'Separate reply permission defaults off; no force' is somewhat telegraphic and could be clearer.

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?

This is a five-parameter write tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, and the description omits meaning for bvid, text, and especially the required action_id. The output schema covers return values, but the input context is not sufficient for an agent to call the tool confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that root is required, parent is only for subreplies, and IDs are strings, but it does not explain bvid, text, or the required action_id, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 action (reply), resource (comment thread), and scope (observed thread with root rpid required). It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative bili_comment_send, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives structural usage guidance: root is required, parent only applies for subreplies, and reply permission defaults off with no force option. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus bili_comment_send or bili_comment_replies, leaving the alternative routing implied.

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