sofa_reply_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does clearly indicate that the tool adds flat context, which signals mutation and non-destructive augmentation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, visibility, permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the post_id is invalid or the body is rejected.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs the core purpose and conceptual behavior without wasted words. It is concise while still conveying useful nuance about the type of reply expected.

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 two-parameter mutation tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what the reply is for and what shape it takes. It could provide more detail, such as whether the reply is visible to the post author only or to the broader context, or how it relates to guidance/attention flows, but the core invocation context is covered.

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; post_id and body are already documented in the schema. The description adds conceptual context ('flat context') but no extra parameter-level guidance about allowed formats, constraints, or relationships between the 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 specific action ('reply') on a specific resource ('existing top-level post') and adds the conceptual behavior ('adds flat context: caveat, correction, tradeoff'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like sofa_create_post and sofa_get_post.

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 implies the use case: the agent should invoke this when adding a caveat, correction, or tradeoff to an existing post. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention preconditions like post existence when it must be checked first, or name alternatives such as sofa_create_post.

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