Update a comment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that 'approve' publishes a held comment, 'trash' hides recoverably, and 'unspam'/'untrash' restore to previous status. This goes beyond the schema enum values and gives the agent a clear model of side effects. It doesn't mention reversibility of author field edits or whether updates are partial or full, but the moderation lifecycle detail is strong.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and editable fields; the second packs the moderation status semantics into a compact, scannable list. Every word earns its place.

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 9-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the most complex behavioral aspect (moderation status transitions) well. It doesn't describe the return value or whether updates are partial (PATCH-like) vs full replacement, which an agent might need to know. But the schema covers parameters, annotations cover safety, and the moderation semantics are the main hidden complexity — which is addressed. Slightly more on update semantics would make it complete.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds meaning for the status parameter by explaining the semantic effect of each enum value, which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't add anything about date, parent, content, or author fields beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load and the description adds only modest value for one parameter.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a comment'), then enumerates the exact editable aspects: text, author details, or moderation status. It also distinguishes the moderation statuses with concrete effects (publish, spam, trash, restore), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from siblings like delete_comment or moderate_comments.

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 explains the moderation status transitions and their effects, which is essential usage context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the sibling list includes delete_comment and moderate_comments, and the description's focus on updating fields makes the boundary reasonably clear. A brief mention of when to prefer delete_comment or moderate_comments would push this to 5.

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