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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it requires an exact code supplied by the reviewer, warns that stale revisions fail, and states that no approval is inferred from conversation. This is meaningful additional behavioral disclosure about the confirmation mechanism and failure conditions.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the action and its critical requirement (exact code). The second sentence states a failure condition. The third sentence states a critical exclusion. No wasted words, and the most important operational constraint is front-loaded.

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 confirmation tool with 6 required parameters, the description covers the key operational context: what code to use, that stale revisions fail, and that approval isn't inferred. The annotations cover idempotency and destructive behavior. The description doesn't explain the exact relationship between 'revision' and 'code' parameters, but the core usage context is adequately covered. An output schema is absent, but for a confirmation action the description's coverage is reasonable.

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 only 33%, with descriptions present for projectId and idempotencyKey. The description itself doesn't explain the 'code' parameter's format or meaning beyond 'code explicitly supplied by the reviewer', which is useful but minimal. The 'revision' parameter's purpose (identifying the exact version to approve) is implied by 'Stale answer/proof revisions fail' but not explicitly documented. The description adds some semantic value but doesn't fully compensate for the 67% of parameters lacking schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Approve') and resource ('this exact reusable answer'), and clarifies the scope ('using only the code explicitly supplied by the reviewer'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'helvabase_apply_library_promotion' by emphasizing confirmation with a code, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling. The phrase 'Stale answer/proof revisions fail' adds a clear constraint that helps an agent understand the tool's purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: after reading the complete promotion and receiving a code from the reviewer. It also states what not to do ('No approval is inferred from the conversation'), which is an explicit exclusion. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like 'helvabase_apply_library_promotion' or 'helvabase_request_library_promotion', so the when-not-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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