grove_reply

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint as false and readOnlyHint as false (implying a write operation), yet the description clarifies the write action and required permission (grove_write). It also discloses the sender identity behavior and the need for grove_relay for alternate identities. This adds useful context beyond annotations, though it doesn't discuss potential side effects or return values.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args list that is easy to scan. It front-loads the purpose and permission. While it could be more terse (e.g., merging permission notes), it is not verbose. The use of a bullet list for args is clear.

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 simple write operation with no output schema, descriptions need not explain return values. The description covers parameters, permissions, and alternate sender behavior. It lacks details on failure conditions or validation rules (e.g., what happens if reply_to_id is invalid), but for typical usage this is sufficient. Given the moderate complexity, it is nearly complete.

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%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does for channel_name, content, reply_to_id, and sender, but app_id is entirely omitted. The description adds meaning for sender's default and permission model, but the incomplete coverage of app_id leaves a gap. Despite the gap, the description covers the essential parameters.

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 states a clear verb ('Reply') and a specific resource ('to a message in a thread'), with key parameters defined. It distinguishes from sibling tools like grove_send_message (new message) and grove_get_thread (read).

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?

While it doesn't explicitly say when to use it vs alternatives, the context of replying in a thread is clear. It does specify a permission requirement (grove_write) and conditions for using a different sender (grove_relay). It does not state when not to use it, but the nature of the action implies direct use for replies.

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