Reject Comments

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

Annotations already declare write, destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds the concrete effect (hiding from viewers), reversibility, and a quota note, which goes beyond the structured annotations. The quota is also stated in the schema, and there is a minor inconsistency (description says '50 units', schema says '50 quota units per 50 comments'), but the added behavioral context is still valuable.

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, front-loaded with purpose and effect, with no wasted words. The quota note is short and necessary.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, its reversibility, and its cost. It does not explain return values (not needed due to output schema) but is otherwise complete; minor gaps like permission requirements are not critical.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides (the quota note is repeated in the schema).

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 specific verb (Reject) and resource (comments on your videos), and the phrase 'can still be approved later' differentiates it from permanent deletion tools like delete_comment. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as hold_comments or approve_comments, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Implies usage by noting that rejected comments can be approved later, suggesting use when you want to hide but retain the option to restore. Yet there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives among sibling tools.

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