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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing conditional failure ("changed input refuses") — content-addressed concurrency protection — plus the required auth scope (outreach:write) and the fact that approval has no downstream side effects (no consent, enrollment, or send). Annotations only state readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds the refusal semantics and permission requirement.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its binding scope, then the hash contract, then exclusions, then the auth requirement. Every clause carries distinct information with no 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 write tool with no output schema and only machine-generated annotations, the description supplies the mutation semantics, the idempotency/refusal behavior, the non-effects, and the permission scope. It is close to complete, missing mainly what a successful approval returns and the meaning of lead_id.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain the critical expected_draft_sha256 contract against the reviewed draft and ties the optional fields (recipient, subject, body) to the approval binding. However, lead_id — a required parameter — is never explained, and the parameters are not enumerated individually, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Record exact draft approval" with the binding scope (recipient, campaign, subject, body) spelled out, and it explicitly carves out what it is not ("does not create consent, enroll or send"). It differentiates against the send/enroll side of the outreach toolset, though it does not name the closest sibling writers (record_outreach_evidence, draft_outreach_email) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Gives a clear operating condition and prerequisite: supply the reviewed draft_sha256 as expected_draft_sha256, requires outreach:write, and negative guidance that approving does not create consent or trigger enrollment/send. No explicit named alternative is offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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