threads_moderate_reply

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, non-idempotent and not read-only; the description goes further by disclosing that hide/unhide cascades to nested replies, that ignored replies remain approvable, and that it returns only a confirmed acknowledgement. The recovery guidance for timeout/cancellation/unknown outcome and the warning that absence from one page is not proof of approval are exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before retrying.

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 single most important constraint — explicit approval — is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each following sentence carries operational weight rather than filler. It is dense and slightly run-on across many short clauses, but nothing is clearly expendable.

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 destructive, non-idempotent moderation tool the description covers prerequisites, permission requirements (threads_manage_replies), scope of effect, where to obtain inputs, failure/retry policy, and confirmation semantics. With an output schema present, the brief acknowledgement note is sufficient return-value coverage.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does explain the behavior of each operation value (hide/unhide cascade scope, approve/ignore lifecycle), which the bare enum does not. However, it never names or characterizes account_id or reply_id beyond the precondition phrasing, so two of three required parameters gain only indirect meaning.

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 (moderate) and resource (a reply) plus the hard precondition of explicit approval of account, reply and operation. The operation set (hide/unhide/approve/ignore) is spelled out, which cleanly separates it from the read-only siblings threads_list_replies and threads_list_pending_replies.

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?

Explicit routing: get the target from threads_list_replies, and use approve/ignore only for items surfaced by threads_list_pending_replies. It also names exclusions — do not use this tool to test permissions, do not retry automatically — and states that nested replies cannot be hidden individually.

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