set-comment-moderation-status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a 50-quota cost, requires confirm: true, and explains that 'rejected' hides comments from public view, which is an important side effect. It stops short of describing error cases or idempotency, but the key operational traits are covered.

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 deliver the action, status options, a migration note, quota cost, and the confirm requirement—all in front-loaded, compact prose. Every clause adds value and there is no redundant content.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential facts: purpose, statuses, cost, confirmation, and a legacy replacement hint. It does not discuss permissions or response bodies, but for a state-setting action it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters, but the description adds meaning by noting the tool handles one or more comments (array), enumerates the moderation status enum values, and explicitly calls out the confirm flag's necessity. This helps the agent reason about required inputs beyond the raw 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the moderation status of one or more comments on your videos.' It enumerates the valid statuses (publish, hold for review, reject) and clarifies the action's scope (moderation, not deletion or editing), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete-comment and update-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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when moderating comments) and provides a meaningful reference to the removed markAsSpam method, which helps agents map legacy intent. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling context and the specific status vocabulary make the use case clear.

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