Hide, reject, spam-report or delete a YouTube comment

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: spam is a report (not deletion), delete is permanent with no undelete, only delete is confirm-gated (others reversible), and banAuthor auto-rejects future comments. These are not inferable from the schema or annotations and are essential for safe invocation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense paragraph, but it is information-dense and front-loads the purpose. It could be slightly better structured (e.g., bulleted actions), but every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff. A minor readability improvement would make it a 5.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers prerequisites (connected channel, commentId source), credit cost (0), action nuances, reversibility, confirmation requirement, and platform-specific restrictions. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is omitted.

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 covers all 4 parameters at 100%, but the description enriches semantics: it explains what each action does, that confirm is required for delete, that banAuthor only applies to reject, and where commentId comes from. This goes beyond the bare schema and helps the agent construct valid requests.

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 clear verb ('moderate') and resource ('a comment on the connected channel'), and immediately identifies the exact action set (publish, hold, reject, spam, delete) with explanations. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its YouTube twin moderate_meta_comment, making it unambiguous which platform it targets. No other sibling does moderation.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it tells the agent to use reject rather than delete when merely hiding a comment, notes that banAuthor is valid only with reject, and instructs to get commentId from list_youtube_comments. It also clarifies that spam is a report not a removal, so the agent can set user expectations correctly. No important usage context is missing.

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