Hide, like or pin a comment

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

Annotations only mark readOnly=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavioral disclosure: every action has an inverse so nothing is permanent, unsupported networks return 400 platform_not_supported, and TikTok capability must be present and reconnected if not granted. This is useful context that the annotations do not provide.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: first line summarizes purpose, then error behavior, inverses, parameter constraint, sibling separation, and the TikTok caveat. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core action taxonomy.

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?

Despite the complexity (six actions, network-specific behavior, capability requirements), the description covers the error contract, inverse semantics, parameter constraints, TikTok special case, and sibling differentiation. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not needed, so nothing important is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description reinforces and sharpens the postId constraint by saying it 'must NOT be sent' for like/unlike, which is stricter than the schema's 'not used.' It mostly restates the schema's parameter descriptions, so it adds only a moderate amount beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase: 'Moderate or react to a comment' and enumerates the concrete actions (hide, like, pin), which clearly identifies the resource and scope. It also explicitly separates itself from delete_comment, so the agent can distinguish this tool from comment-management siblings.

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?

It states when to use it (actions on one of the profile's own posts) and explicitly names delete_comment as the different tool for deletion. It adds actionable conditions: postId is required for hide/unhide and pin/unpin and must NOT be sent for like/unlike, and TikTok requires the 'comments' capability, with a reconnect instruction. This goes beyond merely implying context.

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