douyin_approve_comment_pool

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

Annotations indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds context beyond that: it locks comments, issues a one-time approval ID, and requires user confirmation. It discloses the one-time nature and the prerequisite, aligning with non-idempotency. It doesn't detail all side effects, but provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. Every sentence contributes essential information: the action, the effect, and the precondition. No wasted words.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core action, the prerequisite, and the purpose. It implies the return value (approval ID) and its one-time nature. It could mention how the approval ID connects to sibling tools like douyin_start_campaign, but overall it is sufficiently complete for invocation.

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 only 25% (only userConfirmed has a description). The description compensates partially by mentioning the comment count range (3-5) and user confirmation, but it does not explain the meaning of 'direction' or 'ttlMinutes'. Thus it adds some value but leaves key parameters underspecified.

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 a specific action: locks 3-5 user-confirmed comments and issues a one-time batch approval ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like douyin_start_campaign by focusing on the approval step, not the execution of sending.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite: 'only after the user has seen the complete comment pool and explicitly confirmed.' It also explains the purpose of the approval (allows subsequent auto-send without per-comment confirmation), giving clear context for when to call. It does not name alternative tools but the sequencing is unambiguous.

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