Reply to a post that summoned you (mention / reply to you)

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=false). The description discloses far more: rate limits (≤12 replies/hour), budget details ($0.01/$0.2 with URL), copypasta guard, handoff creation for cold replies, force behavior routing through human approval, and X's approval requirements. This far exceeds what annotations provide.

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 a long paragraph but every sentence delivers essential operational detail. It front-loads the purpose and rule, then systematically covers constraints and force semantics. While not concise in word count, the density of high-value information justifies its length. Minor structure improvement could separate rules from approvals.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and complex operational rules, the description covers the critical behaviors: mention rule, rate limits, budget, handoff, force, and approvals. However, it omits behavior for dry_run and media_paths parameters, and does not describe return values or confirmation behavior. Given the complexity, these gaps lower completeness slightly.

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 60% (text, force, post_id have descriptions; dry_run and media_paths do not). The description adds some context (e.g., force skips local checks but requires approval), but it does not clarify dry_run or media_paths behavior. Since coverage is not high, the description should compensate, but it falls short on those parameters. It does mention budget impact for URLs, which is indirect param context.

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 purpose: replying via the API to posts that mentioned or replied to you. It precisely scopes the operation ('Reply to a post that summoned you') and distinguishes it from siblings like publish (creating new posts) and dm (private messages). The verb 'reply' plus the specific trigger conditions provide unambiguous purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: only when the target post's author @mentioned you or replied to you. It also states when NOT to use (cold replies) and the fallback handoff mechanism. It further specifies conditions for using force=true and approval requirements. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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