reply_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates that a write/send action occurs, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, constraints, whether this appends to an existing thread, or what the response contains.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing important contextual information.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. An agent lacks the information needed to determine when to call it, what values to provide, and what effects to expect.

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 compensate for the two undocumented parameters. It loosely maps 'message' to content and 'forum post or thread' to thread_id, but it provides no details on formats, constraints, or how the parameters relate.

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 clear action ('send a message') and resource ('forum post or thread'). It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling create_post, read_post, or close_post beyond the name itself.

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 about when to use reply_post versus alternatives like create_post, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The intended use is only weakly implied by the tool name and the phrase 'send a message in a forum post or thread.'

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