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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, destructive, non-idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context: the required permission scope (marketing:approve, distinct from draft authority) and the hash-attestation semantic, which implies the approval binds to exact content. It does not explain the destructive consequence or reversibility, which keeps it from 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?

Two short sentences with no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows immediately. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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, non-idempotent approval mutation with no output schema, the description covers the permission gate and the hash-attestation meaning, which is the minimum viable. It is silent on approval side effects, reversibility, and the purpose of the notes parameter, so an agent still lacks full context.

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 only 50%: asset_id is documented as 'Full UUID from the matching list tool', but notes has no description at all. The tool description never mentions the optional notes parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap beyond loosely implying that asset_id identifies the revision.

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 and resource ('Approve a submitted owned revision') and adds a distinctive semantic, attesting to the exact content hash. It implicitly differentiates itself from draft-approval authority in the sibling set, though it does not name a sibling tool explicitly.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires marketing:approve, separate from draft authority'), which is useful context for when this call will succeed. However, it never states when to choose this over reject_content_asset or the consulting approval siblings, nor what conditions must hold for a revision to be approvable.

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