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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds real behavior: required reviewers hard-block publishing, optional reviewers are FYI-only, and the workspace may refuse reviewers outside it by name. That last sentence in particular tells the agent how failures surface, which annotations never could.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the blocking rule, the prerequisite, the scheduling option, and the permission caveat. Nothing repeats the name or title and no sentence is filler.

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 only four parameters, the agent has what it needs: when it can be called, what the reviewer flags do, how scheduling interacts with approval, and how permission rejections appear. Return payload detail is the only gap and is minor here.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents post_id, reviewers, note, and scheduled_at, and the description mostly restates the required-vs-optional reviewer distinction found in the schema. It adds only a little beyond that (scheduling is optional and tied to approval), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (request review) and resource (a draft) and the second explains the outcome (blocking publishing). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like approve_post or list_posts_awaiting_my_review, which sit on the other side of the review lifecycle.

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?

Prerequisites are explicit: the post must already be a draft, and the description names save_draft as the tool to call first. It also describes the two reviewer modes and their consequences, which tells the agent which configuration to pick rather than leaving it to inference.

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