Approve comment

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

Annotations already declare idempotency and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that by stating the visible effect of approval and the API-key requirement, though it does not discuss permissions, error cases, or moderation side effects.

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 short sentences with the core action and effect front-loaded, followed by the authentication prerequisite. There is no wasted language.

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 one-parameter approval tool with annotations covering idempotency and open-world behavior, the description gives the essential action, effect, and auth requirement. It could mention expected response behavior, but no output schema exists and the remaining gap is minor.

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%, and the single commentId parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or meaning beyond identifying that a comment is being approved, so baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource: approve a moderated comment. It also states the concrete effect, making the comment publicly visible, so it is distinguishable from generic comment mutations such as update_comment or delete_comment.

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 implies the appropriate use case by saying the comment is moderated and approval makes it public, and it adds the API-key prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives such as update_comment or approve_ticket, nor does it state when not to use it.

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