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

Goes well beyond the annotations: the post moves to IN_REVIEW, an APPROVED post can be scheduled only if content is unchanged, emails may be sent on the agent's behalf, and in approval_required workspaces the link is not returned so the agent can't self-approve. This is exactly the side-effect disclosure a destructive, open-world mutation 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?

Front-loads the core flow in the first sentence and keeps every subsequent sentence informative (side effects, return value, sandbox restriction). It is a dense single paragraph, so the conditional approval_required branch is slightly buried, but there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return value (the link, plus a WhatsApp link) and the exception case where no link is returned. Combined with the disclosed side effects and sandbox restriction, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 low (29%) and the description compensates for several gaps: it explains that reviewer_email and send_email: true become required when the workspace has approval_required, and that a phone yields a WhatsApp link. It still doesn't clarify send_email's default or the reviewer_phone/reviewer_name semantics, but the conditional requirements are the highest-value information.

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 (send a post for client approval), then details the full reviewer flow: link opened without login, per-account view, approve/request-changes/reject. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_approval as the tool that shows the decision and by explaining how send_email interacts here.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('useful anyway when a human should look first'), what the alternative is ('send_email emails it'), and when it is unavailable ('Not available in an unclaimed sandbox'). It also states the special approval_required workspace path that changes required parameters and withholds the link.

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