nexus_submit_moderation_fix

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds the context of 'active moderation' and the return shape, but does not disclose side effects, failure conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 short, front-loads the purpose, and uses a compact return-format block. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers the operation, scope, and return format, though slightly more context about when the operation is valid or what errors might occur would improve completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage, documenting both moderation_id and description. The tool description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a fix for an active moderation on your content (v2 GraphQL).' It clearly identifies the operation and scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling moderation-related tools such as nexus_clear_comment_moderation_status.

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?

Usage is implied through the phrase 'for an active moderation on your content,' suggesting the tool should be used when a moderation fix is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusion conditions.

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