moodle_reply_forum_post

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

The description adds the behavioral fact that '回复立即全班可见' (the reply is immediately visible to the whole class) and explains the subject default mechanism, both of which go beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description complements this without contradiction.

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, with the core purpose stated first, a key parameter hint embedded, and an important visibility warning highlighted in bold. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 simple mutation tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to obtain the required postid, the optional subject behavior, and the side effect of immediate class-wide visibility. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for postid, message, and subject. The description enhances understanding by telling the user to source postid from moodle_get_discussion_posts and clarifying that subject defaults to 'Re: original title', adding value beyond the schema's raw property descriptions.

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+resource construction '回复 Moodle 论坛里的某个帖子' (reply to a Moodle forum post), clearly stating the tool's action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like moodle_post_forum_discussion (new thread) and moodle_delete_forum_post (removal). The scope is unambiguous.

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 gives a direct usage hint: postid is obtained from moodle_get_discussion_posts, implying a prerequisite call. It clearly implies this tool is for replying to an existing post rather than creating a new discussion, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like moodle_post_forum_discussion. The subject-default behavior also provides practical guidance for invocation.

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