reply_all_message

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

There are no annotations, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It conveys that the tool performs a reply action, but it does not say whether this sends immediately, creates a draft, requires authentication, modifies the original, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 tight sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It front-loads the action and resource, and the parenthetical efficiently adds the key scope distinction. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description should explain when to choose this tool, what side effects occur, and what comment and mailbox mean. It covers only the core action and recipient scope, leaving an agent guessing about optional parameters and operational behavior. This is a minimal definition rather than a complete one.

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%, yet the description does not explain the comment or mailbox parameters, nor does it explicitly map message_id to the 'message' it references. The optional parameters' semantics are absent from both the schema and the prose. The description provides no parameter-level value to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 names a specific action ('reply-all'), a target resource ('a message'), and precisely defines the recipient scope ('sender + everyone on the to/cc lines'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling reply_message and forward_message. The parenthetical adds important precision beyond the tool name.

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?

The parenthetical tells an agent the recipient set, which implicitly suggests when to pick this over reply_message, but it never names alternatives or states when-not-to-use conditions. No explicit exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, so the agent must infer usage from the recipient-scope definition alone.

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