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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses that every call is a fully logged classification attempt, that publication only occurs if the classifier returns 'green', and that non-owner api_keys are rejected. These are significant behavioral traits beyond a simple 'resubmit' action, offering clear expectations.

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 four sentences long but every sentence adds unique value: purpose, audit/publish behavior, ownership gating, and api context. It is front-loaded with the main function and efficiently packs critical behavioral details without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential context: when to use, ownership, classification attempts, and publication rule. It might have explained the response or failure modes, but the provided behavioral details are strong. A minor gap is the lack of info on what happens if the classifier returns a non-green status beyond not publishing, but the text implies the revision remains flagged.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed explanations for all parameters. The description adds context about the api_key's ownership gating and 'same as draft_news' for some params, but these are complementary rather than essential, as the schema already explains each parameter's role. 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 clearly states the tool's function: revising and reclassifying a news article rejected as 'flagged' by draft_news or a prior resubmit_news call. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the resubmission context and its relationship to the audit trail, using specific verbs and resources.

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 description explicitly defines when to use this tool: after a 'flagged' rejection, and it notes that only the original submitter can resubmit. It does not name alternative tools but the context makes the use case clear. It also implies this is not for new submissions or silent status chages, providing practical exclusions.

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