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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, mutating), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond the structured fields: 'Approval does not rewrite the body' clarifies the state-change-only nature, and the expectedRevision match requirement discloses the optimistic-concurrency guard.

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, each earning its place, with the core action and the no-rewrite constraint front-loaded before the revision precondition.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations already carry the safety profile. The description covers the mutation semantics and the revision guard, leaving little an agent needs beyond distinguishing it from accept_sendable_change.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains expectedRevision ('must match the current draft') as a concurrency token, adding genuine value, but says nothing about wordingId beyond its self-evident name. Partial compensation 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+resource ('Approve a draft') and clarifies the target is a user-accepted sendable draft. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named sibling accept_sendable_change, leaving mild ambiguity, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The precondition 'the user has explicitly accepted as sendable' gives implied usage context, but it never names an alternative or states when-not-to-use this versus accept_sendable_change or save_sendable_wording. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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