play_reply_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an auth requirement (reviews.reply), which is useful and beyond the mere action. However, it does not mention side effects, such as whether the reply becomes public, can overwrite an existing reply, or has content/validation restrictions. Some behavioral context is present, but not comprehensive.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key permission requirement. There is no wasted wording, and every sentence 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers purpose and permission but omits parameter semantics, usage workflow, packageName's role, and any expected behavior or return value. An agent could call it incorrectly without additional external knowledge.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter. Field names like reviewId and text are reasonably self-explanatory, but packageName is left completely unexplained, including its optionality and purpose. The description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Responde a uma review" (replies to a review). This clearly names the action and object, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like play_list_reviews (listing) and play_publish (publishing). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose 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?

The only usage-related guidance is the permission prerequisite "Exige reviews.reply." It does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like play_list_reviews, how to obtain a reviewId, or when packageName would be needed. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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