Update Comment Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states that the tool updates the status (write operation) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the bare action.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, achieving good conciseness. However, it is very minimal and could include additional information without being verbose. The structure is front-loaded with key details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it does not explain the return value, idempotency, or constraints on status transitions, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the context 'in your Repliz inbox', which is not present in the schema, and repeats the allowed statuses. This provides slight added meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema, warranting a 3.

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 verb 'Update', the resource 'handling status of a comment', and the scope 'in your Repliz inbox'. It also lists the allowed statuses (pending, resolved, ignored), making it distinct from sibling tools like delete, get, or reply.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to change the handling status of a comment) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or give alternatives. From sibling names, users can infer that deletion uses 'repliz_delete_content_comment' and replies use 'repliz_reply_comment', but no guidance is given.

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