word_reply_to_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosure. It gives one behavioral detail (anchored to same paragraph) but omits side effects, return behavior, permissions, or whether the document is modified in place. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 single, tightly worded sentence with no redundancy. It leads with the verb and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple add-operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. However, it lacks details about return values, preconditions, or side effects, leaving the tool's complete context only partially addressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema—only that the reply is anchored to the same paragraph, which relates to comment_id but doesn't elaborate on parameter constraints or relationships.

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 explicitly states the action ('Add a reply comment') and the resource ('an existing comment'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_add_comment by specifying that it's a reply anchored to the same paragraph. This makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use this tool (when replying to an existing comment) but does not explicitly contrast with word_add_comment or word_add_comments. It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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