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

Annotations already indicate destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds valuable context: 'Nothing is sent' clarifies the impact, and 'records the decline and re-plans' explains the side effect. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, and the usage guideline is placed efficiently. No redundant phrases or 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effect, and a usage precaution. It doesn't mention error cases or return values, but these are minor given the simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 description 'The card to reject' is vague, but the tool description clarifies that approvalId refers to a specific drafted action and is the identifier used to select it. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could be even more explicit about the format or source of approvalId.

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 action (reject/skip), the target (one drafted action), and the identifier (approvalId). It also distinguishes from the sibling gtm_approve by noting the opposite effect, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Ask the human first, as for gtm_approve', providing a clear usage condition. It also explains the consequence (records decline and re-plans) which informs when to use it. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the human-approval requirement is a strong signal.

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