ads_mastodon_reply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses meaningful traits: the confirm gate, pre-checking of the target status, automatic author mention, and the visibility constraint. It still omits auth requirements, rate limits, failure modes, and return behavior, but it adds substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The confirm requirement and key behavioral constraints are 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?

For a five-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core reply behavior and safety constraints. However, it leaves account_id, error cases, and return expectations unaddressed, making it adequate but incomplete.

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 only 20%, with only confirm documented in the schema. The description compensates for status_id, confirm, and visibility semantics, but leaves account_id and text details unexplained, so it provides only partial compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 specific verb, 'Reply,' and a specific resource, 'one selected Mastodon status,' with a clear scope constraint. It is easy to distinguish from broad posting tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as ads_mastodon_thread_create or ads_mastodon_direct_message.

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 an important precondition, explicit confirm=true, and a visibility rule, which gives implied usage context. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over sibling reply or messaging tools, nor does it state when not to use it.

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