blogger_comments_approve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the key side effect: the comment is removed from spam or pending status and becomes live. While it does not mention permissions or reversibility, this covers the core behavior for a straightforward approve action.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Approve a comment') and immediately conveys the outcome. There is no wasted wording.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. It could mention the response format or prerequisites like moderation permissions, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (blogId, postId, commentId) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'approve' with the resource 'comment' and clearly explains the outcome: removing it from spam or pending status and making it live. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like markAsSpam and delete.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (whenever a comment should be approved) and clarifies the effect. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for agents to select it over sibling comment actions.

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