reply

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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile; the description adds real behavioral effects: the original is marked read, the sender is woken, info suppresses waking, state distinguishes done/refused/failed, and files are copied into the room. It doesn't cover error/retry or permission behavior, but it discloses far more than the annotations do.

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?

Purpose and the progress alternative are front-loaded, then a compact Args list; every line carries meaning. Slightly dense but no wasted sentences.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, side effects, the state/vote semantics and the key alternative; an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. Only minor gaps (permissions, error conditions) remain.

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 carry all parameter meaning — and it does, explaining all six params: id, text (including the reason for refused/failed), info's non-waking semantics, vote values, state outcomes with default, and files being copied into the room. This goes well beyond the bare schema types.

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 (answer) and resource (a message addressed to you) plus the topic scoping, and explicitly names the sibling 'progress' as the alternative when you are still working. It does not differentiate from other close cousins like 'send', 'close' or 'wait_reply', so sibling routing is only partial.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule ('A reply closes the request: to say you are still working on it, use progress') and explains the info flag's purpose ('final agreement, closing note'). It does not say when a reply is inappropriate versus send/close, but the key routing decision is covered.

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