Draft a review reply

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

Annotations only say it is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds the important facts: nothing is posted publicly, the draft is persisted on the review for the owner to edit, generation is asynchronous, and the content constraints (store character limits, no refund promises, no personal data, no links except the owner's support link).

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and object, and every clause carries information (language, limits, prohibitions, non-posting, follow-up). It is a single dense sentence chain rather than being overlong, though the constraint list could be split for easier scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description tells the agent what the call produces (a saved draft, not a posted reply) and that generation is async via wait_for_jobs. Side effects, constraints, and the follow-up path are all covered for a four-parameter mutation.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by sourcing reviewId from get_reviews and by framing the content rules that 'directions' can steer within ('polite and specific', store limits). It does not explain the 'ai' provider parameter, which the schema already handles.

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 (queue an AI draft of the public reply to one review) and distinguishes the operation from the actual send, which the description notes only the owner can do in the app. The sibling tools contain no other reply-drafting operation, so the boundary is 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?

Gives the entry condition (reviewId from get_reviews), the post-condition workflow (then wait_for_jobs and get_reviews), and explicitly excludes the send step. An agent knows both when to call it and what to do next without inspecting other schemas.

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