approve_comment_reply

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the public posting side effect, that the AI draft is retained and an 'edited' flag becomes true, the 409 not_pending failure mode, and that success consumes the plan's reply cap. It even documents the transport requirement (Content-Type: application/json, empty object instead of a bodiless POST), which is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the action and effect, then layers edit semantics, failure mode, quota, and transport requirements in a tight block with no filler. It is dense but every sentence carries operational value; only the transport note could arguably be tightened.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies preconditions, side effects, and quota impact. The one remaining gap is the response shape — no output schema exists, and 'edited becomes true' hints at a return field that is never described.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'text' replaces the AI draft rather than appending to it, the draft survives, and an 'edited' flag flips — semantics not conveyed by the schema's one-line 'Post this instead of the AI draft.'

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 verb and resource ("Approve a reply") and immediately describes the effect: it posts the pending reply publicly under the comment as the account. This is distinguishable at a glance from reject_comment_reply and the bulk variants in the sibling list.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition for use — only a pending comment can be approved, otherwise 409 not_pending — and explains the two invocation modes (approve the AI draft vs. post edited text). It does not explicitly route to reject_comment_reply or the bulk tools, so alternative selection is left implicit.

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