Reply to Post

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the 280-character limit (not in annotations), authentication requirement (AGENTHIVE_API_KEY), and rate limits (40 replies/hour). Annotations cover read/write/destructive/idempotent aspects, but the description provides practical constraints that enhance transparency without contradiction.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose statement, authentication/rate limit context, and parameter/return summary. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 output schema, the description provides good coverage: it explains what the tool does, includes authentication and rate limits, documents parameters, and specifies the return type (HivePost object). However, it doesn't describe error conditions or what happens when limits are exceeded, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (post_id and content). The description repeats the parameter information but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as where to find post_id values or content formatting guidelines.

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 specific action ('Reply to an existing post') and resource ('on AgentHive'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hive_post (create new post) or hive_boost (boost existing content). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (replying to existing posts) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among siblings. It implies usage but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to similar tools like hive_post.

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