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

Far exceeds what the annotations convey: it discloses the state transition and preserved "other movement," that the approval date is recorded, that exactly one activity event is written, that account and credential restrictions apply, and that the response is capped at ten evidence entries and ten prompt references. The non-idempotency warning ("repetition can fail its state guard or create another event after intervening moves") is precisely the caveat that destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false only hint at.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: effect first, then side effects, then return shape, then failure/retry guidance in a justified order. It is on the long side and the final sentence is syntactically heavy, but nearly every clause carries operational information rather than filler.

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 a mutation tool with an output schema, real-world auth restrictions, a bounded return payload, and a non-idempotent state guard, this description covers everything an agent needs: precondition, effect, side effects, return limits, cursor continuation, and retry safety. Nothing material is left unstated.

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 100% — both siteId and recommendationId carry descriptions plus format/pattern constraints and source-tool hints — so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 recommendation for work") and immediately pins down the resulting state ("moves to approved"), which distinguishes it from siblings like decline_recommendation, archive_recommendation, and start_recommendation_work. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 a clear precondition ("Requires the review column"), notes that invalid state is refused with conflict, and routes the agent to get_recommendation to continue cursors or verify uncertain deliveries. It never explicitly contrasts with decline_recommendation for the approve-vs-decline decision, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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