reply_to_comment

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the asynchronous queued behavior: 'Linked API actions are queued into a cloud-browser workflow and may take several minutes.' It details the server's immediate status response, the retry duplicate risk, and the meaning of pendingReason values including 'outsideWorkingHours'. This is extensive and goes far beyond the bare 'reply' action.

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?

Although long, every sentence covers a necessary operational or safety aspect: purpose, return values, queuing, retry warning, result retrieval, and pending reason explanations. The structure front-loads the purpose and then logically progresses through workflow behavior, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's async complexity, the description covers not only the action but also the immediate response format, how to obtain the final result, how to interpret pending states, and how to handle the outsideWorkingHours case. The input schema handles parameters, and the description fully explains the behavior and output semantics, making it 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 100%: both 'text' (with character limit) and 'commentUrl' (LinkedIn URL) are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 'by commentUrl' — it does not explain formats, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Thus the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Reply to a comment by commentUrl' and explicitly states the outcome: 'returns the reply's URN and URL.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like comment_on_post (commenting on a post) and react_to_comment (reacting) by focusing on replying to an existing comment.

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 description provides explicit when-not guidance: 'If this workflow is still running, do not retry this tool; retrying can post duplicate replies.' It also directs the user to an alternative: 'call get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId and operationName' to retrieve the final result. This gives clear exclusion and alternative usage.

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