reply_current_app_review

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses risk grading behavior (server applies risk, returns draft for MEDIUM/HIGH, requires confirmation) and that the tool sends as official app identity. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with bold headings for prerequisites and critical notes. Concise yet covers all essential points without unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema. Description explains risk grading and confirmation flow, which is complete for a reply tool with potential drafts. Misses return type details but covers critical behavioral aspects.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning: explains confirm_high_risk should only be set after explicit approval, and contents is the official reply. This provides context beyond schema descriptions.

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 'Reply to a specific review as the official app identity.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'like_current_app_review' and 'get_current_app_reviews', specifying the verb 'reply' and the resource 'review'.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites: 'An app MUST be selected first.' and critical guidance: 'Always make sure the user has reviewed and approved the reply content before calling this tool.' Also explains risk grading and when to set confirm_high_risk.

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