ed_reply_to_comment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds the behavioral note '发出即上线' (goes live immediately upon posting), which is useful context about publication timing. However, it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or other side effects, so the contribution is modest.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and a note on immediacy. It is free of filler, well-structured, and every phrase earns its place.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is too thin. It does not mention prerequisites such as obtaining a valid comment_id from ed_get_thread, explain the optional flags, or describe the tool's response. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete guidance.

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 coverage is 50% (content and comment_id have descriptions, is_private and is_anonymous do not). The description itself does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema, nor does it compensate for the undocumented optional fields. This leaves the agent guessing at the semantics of is_private and is_anonymous.

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 clearly states the tool's action: '回复 Ed 上已有的评论' (reply to an existing comment on Ed). It uses a specific verb ('reply') and resource ('existing comment'), which inherently distinguishes it from siblings like ed_post_comment (posting a new comment) and ed_post_thread (posting a new thread).

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 implies usage when one wants to reply to an existing Ed comment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase '已有的评论' hints at needing an existing comment_id, but no exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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