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

Goes well beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing the side effect ('may make and publish the post'), atomic validation of payload revision and schedule, that spending caps and Autopilot settings are preserved, the required manage:autopilot scope, and the idempotency contract. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries unique information (flow, effects, permission, recovery). It is somewhat dense in the middle, packing atomic checks, caps and scope into one semicolon-chained sentence, but nothing is redundant.

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 destructive, open-world, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the preview return shape, the confirmation contract, side effects, authorization scope, and failure recovery. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely on the first try.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the load: expectedActionHash must be the unchanged hash from the preview, confirm:true is what actually executes, clientRequestId must be stable (idempotency key), and actionId must match the previewed action. All four parameters gain meaning not present in the schema.

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 one planned Autopilot post') with an explicit single-item scope, and routes the reader to the sibling read tool soclo_autopilot_get_draft for reconciliation, separating it from the read path. An agent can distinguish this from reject_draft/drafts/run without opening any 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 an explicit two-call protocol: first call returns a preview to show the owner, then re-call with the unchanged actionId/expectedActionHash, confirm:true and a stable clientRequestId. It also states the when-not path: on uncertainty read soclo_autopilot_get_draft with the original actionId, reconcile, and never repeat the write or create a replacement.

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