Reply to a customer review

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes well beyond them: dry_run defaults to true and returns a plan, a review holds at most one reply, replace deletes the old reply, replies are public, and ASC_WRITE=1 is required. This is exactly the mutation-specific context an agent needs before acting.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the safety workflow. There is mild redundancy: the dry_run default and the 'call again with false' instruction are repeated almost verbatim in the schema's dry_run description.

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 destructive, 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety protocol, the permission prerequisite, and the one-reply-per-review edge case. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely is missing.

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 only 50% (text and replace have no schema descriptions), and the description compensates well for replace ('deletes the old reply and posts the new one') and the dry_run workflow. It says nothing extra about the text body, though maxLength/minLength are already encoded in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Publishes a developer reply to a customer review'), which is unmistakably distinct from the read-side sibling get_reviews. The added semantics (single reply per review, replace behavior) make the operation's scope unambiguous without opening either schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use replace: true to change an existing reply, and the dry_run two-step workflow ('Show it to the user, then call again with dry_run: false'). The prerequisite ASC_WRITE=1 is also stated, leaving little to inference.

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