reply_to_service_caseAdds a customer reply or acknowledgement to a service case by case ID, helping document responses while keeping credentials and private payloads out of messages.
Add a customer reply or acknowledgement. Never include credentials or private payloads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| case_id | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the write/irreversible profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine safety constraint about excluding credentials and private payloads, but never says the reply is customer-facing, whether it is final, or what happens with an invalid case_id.
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, the action front-loaded, and the cautionary clause is not padding. Nothing is wasted.
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 non-idempotent, destructive mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unsaid: no prerequisites, no side effects, no confirmation of what is returned or what a failure looks like.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. Mentioning 'reply or acknowledgement' gestures at the kind enum, but case_id and message (including the 2000-character limit) are left entirely to the raw schema constraints.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: add a customer reply or acknowledgement. That is unambiguous and matches the name and title. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_service_case or list_service_cases, though the verb makes its role as the write counterpart fairly obvious.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_service_case, or on prerequisites such as obtaining a case_id first. The only usage constraint given is the safety note about credentials and private payloads. An agent must infer the workflow entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.