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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), it discloses a precondition — "Refuses an unfinished draft" — and the downstream consequence that GrowthDept proceeds subject to the owner's settings. It does not say whether an approval can be undone, which is the main remaining behavioral gap for a committing action.

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, front-loaded with the action and the id source, followed by the permission gate and the refusal condition. No sentence is 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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers action, prerequisite, authorization rule, and what happens next. Only the reversibility of an approval is left unstated, a minor omission given the compact surface.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the id must come from approvals_waiting and the gate for person_asked is restated as a hard rule. This helps an agent source the id correctly rather than invent one.

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: "Record the owner's yes to one waiting draft," and pins the id source to the sibling tool approvals_waiting. An agent can distinguish this from reject_item or approvals_waiting without opening a 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?

"Only call this when the person asked for this item to be approved" gives an explicit when-to-use gate, and the id parenthetical points at approvals_waiting as the discovery step. It does not explicitly name reject_item as the alternative when the answer is no, so the routing is clear but not complete.

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