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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: the tool returns a REST endpoint and body to POST rather than directly posting, replies are free, title defaults to 'Re: <thread title>', and replies are never boosted. This gives the agent a thorough understanding of the tool's effects.

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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and return value. Every sentence adds useful information without fluff.

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, the description correctly explains that the tool returns a REST endpoint and body. It covers cost, thread depth, default title, ranking behavior, and distinguishes from siblings. The 7-parameter schema is fully described, making the tool well-rounded for an agent.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description repeats the title default behavior but adds no new parameter-specific information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: preparing a free reply to an existing notice, with specific context about thread depth. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like seneschal_board_boost and seneschal_board_post by explicitly mentioning 'reply' vs 'boost'.

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 clear usage context, explaining that replies are free and never boosted, and directs users to boost the thread root for ranking. It implies when to use this tool (for replying) but does not explicitly contrast it with creating a new top-level post via board_post.

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