Apply a moderation status to a YouTube comment. Allowed status values: heldForReview, published, rejected, spam. Costs 50 quota units.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | One of: heldForReview, published, rejected, spam. | |
| comment_id | Yes | Bare commentId OR 'youtube:comment:<id>'. | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's burden is lower. It earns credit by adding a genuinely useful operational detail not in the structured data: the 50-unit quota cost. It does not state reversibility, permission scope, or when a moderated comment becomes visible, but the annotation coverage makes that a modest gap.
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?
Two short sentences with the operation front-loaded and the two most decision-relevant facts (valid statuses, quota cost) packed in. No 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 non-destructive mutation with full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema to explain, the description covers the essentials plus cost. It is only missing permission requirements and the effect of each status, which is a minor omission at this complexity level.
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% and both required fields are self-documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's list of status values merely restates the schema's status description, adding no new meaning (no ordering, side effects, or default behavior for heldForReview).
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?
States a specific action (apply a moderation status) and resource (a YouTube comment), which is enough to distinguish it from youtube_delete_comment, youtube_list_comments, and youtube_post_comment_reply. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.
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 enumerates allowed status values but gives no guidance on when to choose heldForReview versus rejected versus spam, no prerequisites, and no pointer to related tools like the delete or reply endpoints. Usage must be inferred from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.