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

Annotations only flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive; the description adds the consequential detail annotations cannot convey — that approving the draft is irreversible ('cannot be undone'), the downstream routing to editors, and the two-changes-per-piece cap. That is exactly the extra context a mutation tool needs.

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 the core action, then the irreversible consequence, then the safety prerequisite and the retry cap. No filler; every clause routes the agent's behavior.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, irreversible effects, downstream routing, and a call-count limit. An agent has all the information needed to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 50%: feedback and orderLink are documented in-schema, and the enums for piece and action are self-describing. The description adds business meaning (what 'approve' vs 'changes' trigger at each piece stage) but does not explain the action enum or the orderLink format beyond the schema. With coverage at the midpoint, this is a solid 3.

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 precise verb and resource: recording the client's decision (approve/changes) on an outline or draft produced by get_client_order. The two effects — approving an outline starts the draft, approving the draft sends it to editors — make it impossible to confuse with sibling submit_* or get_client_order tools.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('Show the client the full text and get their explicit go-ahead first') and a hard limit ('Changes can be asked for twice per piece; after that our team works with the client directly'), which tells the agent both when to call and when to stop calling. It also points at the upstream tool (get_client_order) that produces the artifact under review.

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