reply_mr_discussion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'The reply appears as posted by the authenticated user,' which is useful. However, it omits details about permissions, error handling if the discussion doesn't exist, and whether the discussion can be resolved. This is partial behavioral disclosure, not comprehensive.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, highlighting the prerequisite, and noting the author identity. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool has five required parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and a key prerequisite but doesn't mention return values, failure modes, or side effects. For a mutation tool without annotations, more context about expected outcomes or restrictions would be helpful, but it's adequate for basic invocation.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining that discussionUuid must come from list_mr_discussions or get_mr_discussion, giving the agent concrete source guidance for a key parameter.

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 function: 'Add a reply to an existing discussion thread on a merge request.' It specifies the verb (add a reply), the resource (existing discussion thread on a merge request), and differentiates from siblings like create_mr_discussion by emphasizing 'existing' and 'reply.'

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?

It provides explicit prerequisite context: 'Requires the discussion UUID from list_mr_discussions or get_mr_discussion.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and where to obtain the necessary identifier. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the phrasing implies it's for replies, not new threads.

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