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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: the reviewer loses link access, the post state transitions from IN_REVIEW to DRAFT, and an existing decision is preserved. That is exactly the 'what gets destroyed / what changes' information an agent needs before a destructive mutation.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the destructive effect is front-loaded and the alternative tool follows the state-change detail.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the state transition and the preserved-decision edge case well. It doesn't state what happens if no pending link exists (error vs. no-op) or what the call returns, a minor residual gap.

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 only 50% -- post_id has no schema description, and workspace_id is documented only in the schema, not the description. The phrase 'the post's pending approval link' weakly implies post_id scope but adds no format or sourcing guidance, so the description does not compensate for the coverage 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 -- revoking the post's pending approval link -- and immediately names the observable effect (reviewer can't open it, IN_REVIEW moves back to DRAFT). This clearly distinguishes it from request_approval and revoke_connect_link without needing 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to request_approval for the follow-up (sending a new link) and clarifies the no-op case when a decision has already been made. It stops short of saying when NOT to call it (e.g. if no approval link is pending), but the context is clear.

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