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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effects of each status, the special ban_author constraint, the scope limitation to the connected channel, and the operational cost of 50 units per comment. This gives the agent important expectations before invoking the tool.

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 short, dense, and every sentence adds value: possible states, parameter restriction, scope boundary, and cost. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 moderation action with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral and operational constraints. It could additionally clarify pagination/return behavior or accepted input size for `comment_ids`, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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?

The description enriches `status` and `ban_author` by explaining their practical meaning and constraint, which goes beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain `comment_ids` or `account`, so the agent still has to infer their purpose from names alone. This is adequate but not complete.

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 ('Modera comentários') and defines the three possible target states (`published`, `heldForReview`, `rejected`). This makes the tool clearly distinguishable from related tools like youtube_comment_delete, youtube_comment_post, or youtube_comment_update.

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 gives clear context: it applies only to comments on the connected channel's own videos, which is a meaningful condition. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools by name, but the usage boundary is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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