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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds valuable context: it requires the dataset owner's API key or KNOWLEDGE_ADMIN_KEY, and it discloses that approved text is chunked and becomes retrievable. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and authorization requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second covers authorization and consequences. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the action, authorization, and side effects, and the output schema exists to explain return values. It does not explicitly mention that rejection has no chunking side effect, but that is implied by 'Approved text is chunked'. For a decision tool with an output schema and clear annotations, this is nearly complete.

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 67%, with revision_id and decision already described in the schema. The description adds context for revision_id by referencing the sibling tools that return it, and it clarifies the decision values implicitly through 'Approve or reject'. However, it does not add much detail about the 'note' parameter, which is the only parameter not described in the schema. The description is adequate but not exceptional.

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 ('Approve or reject a pending revision') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like koskamo_propose_revision and koskamo_list_revisions. It also adds the consequence of approval ('Approved text is chunked and becomes retrievable'), which clarifies the tool's role in the workflow.

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 implies when to use this tool: after a revision has been proposed and is pending, and it names the sibling tools that produce the revision_id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for other actions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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