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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the lock semantics, the distinct OAuth scope requirement, and the explicit statement that approval does not publish or share the revision.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the distinguishing constraints. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 destructive, idempotent approval with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: scope requirement and non-publishing behavior. The remaining gap is failure behavior on version/hash mismatch, which is minor for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 0% for 3 parameters, so the description carries the burden. The phrase 'one exact proposal/SOW revision' hints that document_id, expected_version, and expected_content_hash must match a specific revision, but it never explains the concurrency/version-check semantics or what a mismatch does, leaving the parameters largely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (approve and lock) and a precise resource (one exact proposal/SOW revision), which distinguishes it from sibling approve_consulting_deliverable and submit_consulting_deliverable. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the resource scoping is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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 the precondition (requires the separate consulting:approve scope) and a boundary (never publishes or shares), which implies when this tool is appropriate. It does not say when to use it instead of update_consulting_document_revision or approve_consulting_deliverable, so the when-not guidance is only implied.

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