Comment Approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the actual state transition (published), which is the most important trait, but says nothing about required permissions, idempotency, whether the change is reversible, or side effects like notifications.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the effect parenthesized. No filler, though it is arguably too terse to be fully informative.

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 not be explained. For a simple state-toggle tool with no annotations, however, the description omits permissions, reversibility, and error conditions, leaving meaningful context gaps.

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 coverage is 0% for the single comment_id parameter, so the description would ideally supply format details. It does not, but the parameter is self-evident from its name and the surrounding 'comment' context, so it avoids being a real gap.

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 and resource ('Approve a comment') and adds the concrete effect ('set status to published'), so the agent knows exactly what state change occurs. It does not explicitly name the counterpart sibling comment_unapprove, which keeps it 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as comment_unapprove or comment_update, and no mention of preconditions (e.g., the comment must exist or be in a pending state). The use case is only implied by the verb.

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