Comment Replies

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that the call may consume paid API credits, requires confirm=true, and explains why a POST is read-like ("do not publish to social platforms"), which resolves the otherwise puzzling readOnlyHint=false. It does not cover auth/account selection or rate limits, so not a full 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, pagination, and finally the cost/confirm caveat. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the return-shape sentence is somewhat optional given the tool returns objects an agent will inspect anyway.

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 5-param, no-output-schema, credit-consuming POST, the description covers purpose, return fields, pagination, and the cost/confirm gate. Only auth/account-selection behavior and error/rate-limit handling are left to the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces pagination semantics ("Paginate with cursor from the previous response") and the confirm=true requirement, adding modest value, but otherwise duplicates what the schema already states.

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 (Fetches) and resource (replies to a specific TikTok comment by ID), with the scope narrow enough to separate it from the sibling tiktok_comments (which lists top-level comments on a video) and from youtube/instagram/facebook comment_replies. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by "replies to a specific comment by its ID" and the requirement of a comment_id, but the description never names an alternative or states when-not-to-use (e.g. use tiktok_comments for top-level comments). No explicit routing guidance is given.

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