Hold a YouTube comment for review

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the comment is taken off the public video until approved and can be republished via hide_comment with hidden:false.

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 front-loaded with the core action and state change, followed by the platform restriction and reversal path. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is close to complete. It explains the platform, the public-visibility effect, and how to reverse it, though it omits prerequisites such as required permissions or approval workflow details.

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 three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add format or syntax details beyond referring to a comment on one of the channel's videos, 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: moving a comment to "Held for review" on a YouTube video. It also names the platform and the state change, which distinguishes it from generic comment actions and from hide_comment, whose hidden:false setting is explicitly named for reversal.

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 gives clear context: YouTube only, and it names the alternative call for republishing. It does not explicitly explain when to choose hold_comment versus hide_comment, ignore_comment, or approve_comment, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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