build_reply_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool only reads and never sends, that no argument changes this, that the API contract was verified, and that follow-up validation differs from request validation. This is exceptionally transparent about side effects and constraints.

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 front-loaded with the key purpose and safety statement, followed by behavioral context and a structured Args section. It is long but information-dense; some of the API-test evidence could be shortened, but it does earn its place by substantiating the 'sends nothing' claim.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns conceptually, validation rules, parameter semantics, the file-writing side effect, and the hard limit that sending is impossible through the API. No critical decision-relevant information appears to be missing.

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 fully compensate for every parameter. It does: request_id is explained as the numeric id of an existing request, text must include salutation and closing formula, subject has a documented default, and path is described with its exact purpose and file behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare a follow-up message to an authority.' It immediately clarifies the key behavioral distinction from sibling tools: 'reads the API, sends nothing.' It also names itself as the counterpart of build_submit_url, which clearly differentiates it from related tools.

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 explicitly frames this tool as being for an existing request, in contrast to build_submit_url. It also gives a clear exclusion: replying is not possible through the API at all, so no tool argument can turn this into a send. The path parameter is explicitly tied to the condition of later using send_reply_via_browser, which gives clear when-to-use guidance.

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