reply_to_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the API key requirement, lacking details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after replying (e.g., post visibility, notifications). For a write operation, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential prerequisite information. Every word serves a clear function.

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?

Given this is a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral implications. The API key mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing context about the mutation's effects.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (post_id and content). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 action ('Reply to') and target resource ('a post on the HumanAway feed'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_post' (new post) and 'react_to_post' (different interaction). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives (e.g., 'sign_guestbook' might be similar).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'react_to_post' or 'sign_guestbook'. It mentions an environment variable requirement, but this is a prerequisite rather than usage context. There's no indication of appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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