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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful state-machine behavior: the released decision runs on the autopilot's next pass once run_after has passed, and an approval older than the approval window is refused and taken back to proposed. This adds real context about timing and failure behavior. It does not describe the response shape, but no output schema exists and the annotations already define the safety profile.

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 compact and front-loads the core action before adding timing and failure behavior. The parenthetical CLI reference is slightly incidental for an agent, but the overall wording is dense without being bloated.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers the key prerequisite ('held'), the resulting state ('approved'), autopilot timing, and the stale-approval refusal case. It leaves out response details and permission requirements, but those are secondary given the annotations and schema.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions run_after and the approval window, but these are behavioral concepts rather than parameter usage details, so it adds little beyond the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Release a held cost decision') and states the target state ('back to approved'), which clearly separates it from generic approval or execution actions. It does not explicitly name a sibling like hold_cost_decision or approve_cost_decision, but the word 'held' and the target state make the purpose unambiguous.

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 condition for use is implied by 'held cost decision', and the description notes that stale approvals older than the approval window are refused. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of sibling tools such as approve_cost_decision or execute_cost_decision, nor does it state when not to use it.

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