blogger_comments_markAsSpam

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the key behavioral effect (removing the comment from the live view), which gives some insight into the tool's behavior. However, it does not mention whether the action is reversible, if it requires special permissions, or what happens to the comment's state beyond visibility. This is acceptable for a simple moderation action but lacks deeper 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and result. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary details.

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 moderation tool with three identifier parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and effect. It does not need to explain return values (none provided) and the parameter schema covers the inputs. While it could mention reversibility or permissions, these are not essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully describes all three parameters with clear explanations (blogId, postId, commentId), and the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states; it only reinforces which comment is being marked. By the baseline rule, this scores a 3.

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 a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('a comment') with a clear action ('as spam') and explains the visible effect ('moving it out of the live view'). It immediately distinguishes this from sibling operations like approve, delete, or removeContent.

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 implies when to use the tool (to hide spam comments from public view) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. It contrasts with approve by the effect, but does not name sibling tools or conditions like 'use only for comments that are actually spam, not for comments that merely need moderation.'

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