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

Annotations flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds value beyond them: the operation is paid, it enforces a per-kind daily cost cap, it is restricted to Hive staff, and it has a two-phase estimate-then-commit flow. It still doesn't say what happens if the cap is hit or what a failed build leaves behind, so not a 5.

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 staff-only access gate is front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information (scope, timing, payment flow, cap). Phrasing is terse to the point of being telegraphic ('Paid: call without approved for the estimate'), but nothing is padding.

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 paid, destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers access restriction, cost model, approval sequencing, and the cap. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and the identifier format, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 50%; the description explains the 'approved' flag's purpose (estimate vs. commit) beyond the schema's one-liner, which is helpful. However, 'idea_id' is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description doesn't say what kind of identifier it expects.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Build an Approved idea') and scopes it ('workflow or agent, by the idea's own kind'), plus distinguishes it from batch processing ('now instead of waiting for the next batch'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling 'build' tool, so it falls 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?

It gives concrete procedural guidance: call without 'approved' to get an estimate, then call with 'approved: true' after the person agrees. That is a clear when/how-to-use sequence, but it names no exclusions or alternative tools for the non-urgent case beyond the implicit 'next batch'.

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