prom_seller_reply_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one critical behavioral trait: the tool is disabled unless PROM_ALLOW_WRITES=true, which is genuinely useful operational context. However, it omits other important behavior – whether the message is sent immediately, rate limits, auth/permission requirements, and what the reply looks like on the platform.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the operational gating constraint. No filler, no repetition – every clause 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't compensate for the missing parameter documentation or describe return behavior, leaving notable gaps in the agent's ability to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the two required parameters. It never clarifies that 'id' identifies the message being replied to or that 'message' is the reply body. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is a real gap for a 2-param required schema.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Reply to a seller message through Prom.ua.' It distinguishes itself from read-oriented siblings like prom_seller_get_message and prom_seller_list_messages via the 'Reply' verb. However, it doesn't clarify how it differs from the closely named prom_seller_set_message_status, which could also involve outbound messaging.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given beyond the basic action. There is no mention of alternatives (e.g., set_message_status for status changes versus reply for sending content) or preconditions beyond the write-gate flag. The agent must infer context.

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