Hold Comments

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely new information the annotations cannot convey: a quota cost ('Quota: 50 units') and the fact that the hidden state persists until a review action occurs, which signals reversibility.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the cost constraint; nothing is wasted. Minor redundancy: the quota is stated at the top level and again inside the `comments` schema description, where the ambiguity of 'units' is resolved but the top-level line leaves the denominator unstated.

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, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains thin is the workflow boundary with reject_comments/approve_comments, but for a two-parameter moderation call the description plus structured fields are sufficient to invoke it correctly.

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%, with both `comments` (IDs/links, quota cost) and `my_channel` (channel selector) fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no field-level semantics beyond the quota statement, 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?

States a concrete verb+resource+scope: 'Hide comments on your videos.' The phrase 'until you review them' hints at the moderation lifecycle, but the description never names the sibling actions that complete the workflow (approve_comments, reject_comments), so the agent must infer the distinction between holding and permanently rejecting.

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?

'until you review them' implies a moderation workflow context, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to approve_comments/reject_comments as the follow-up or alternative actions.

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