Moderate a comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (requires the comments:moderate scope) and indicates a mutation action. However, it does not explain side effects, reversibility, or what the response looks like, which would be valuable for an agent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only necessary details (allowed statuses and scope requirement). No redundancy or filler.

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 setter, the description covers purpose, statuses, and required scope. While there is no output schema and no mention of return behavior, the simplicity of the operation makes this mostly complete. A brief note on alternatives to sibling post-moderation tools would have pushed it higher.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both id and status, and the status enum is also present. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Sets a comment's moderation status') and enumerates the allowed statuses (approved, pending, or spam). This specific verb+resource combination, along with the title 'Moderate a comment', effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on posts.

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 the tool is for moderating comments, and the scope requirement provides a prerequisite context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like update_post or publish_post/unpublish_post, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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