Reply to comment as company

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It only restates the action of replying, without adding context about public visibility, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The annotations already indicate a write operation and open-world behavior.

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 that states the action and subject. No filler words, earning high marks for conciseness though it sacrifices guidance.

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?

The description, combined with the comprehensive schema and output schema, is adequate for a simple reply operation. However, it lacks contextual information about when to use it and potential side effects, making it slightly incomplete for an agent needing to select among sibling tools.

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?

All four parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions, so the description adds no extra semantic meaning. The schema covers 100% of the parameters, making the description's lack of param details acceptable.

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 the specific verb 'reply' and identifies the resource: a comment on one of the company's posts. It clearly states the tool's function, but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like personal_comment_as_admin.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for similar tasks.

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