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

The description discloses the permission requirement (post:approve), the resulting state change (returns to draft with approvalStatus 'rejected'), the author notification, and the ability to edit and resubmit. Error codes 400/403/404 are also listed. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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?

The description is well-structured with front-loaded scope, then permission, effects, errors, and usage guidance. It is slightly redundant because the first and last sentences both mention 'awaiting team approval,' but every sentence otherwise contributes value.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the essential context: authorization, exact state transition, follow-up workflow, and all relevant error cases. An agent can confidently invoke this tool correctly without further information.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and both postId and reason already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so it does not need to compensate for schema gaps; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with 'Reject a post awaiting team approval,' a specific verb+resource+scope that clearly defines the operation. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like approve_post and publish_post by the 'awaiting team approval' condition.

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 final sentence explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the user (an owner/admin/approver) wants to reject a post awaiting team approval.' It gives role context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, leaving minor room for improvement.

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