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

Beyond the annotations (which declare the mutation/idempotency/safety profile), the description discloses the resulting status (10), the publication consequence, an authorization requirement (post:approve), and a failure condition. This is substantive behavioral context an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 sentences, each earning its place, with the core action and state change front-loaded. No redundancy with the title or annotations.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers outcome state, preconditions, failure mode, and auth needs. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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?

There is one parameter (post_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It only implies a post is targeted and adds no format, source, or identifier guidance for post_id. The parameter name is largely self-evident, keeping it at a baseline 3.

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 ('Withdraws the approval the user gave to a post') and describes the resulting state change (back to review, status 10). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like approve_post and reject_post.

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 explicit constraints on when it applies ('only works for posts the user approved themselves') and when it fails ('already published'), plus the required permission. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g. reject_post) for adjacent scenarios, so it falls just short of a 5.

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