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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotence, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the auth requirement, but says nothing about whether rejection is reversible, whether it notifies the author, or what state the asset ends up in.

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 with the action and the permission prerequisite front-loaded; nothing wasted.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action and permission but omits consequences — reversibility, downstream effects, and resulting asset state — leaving an agent unsure of what happens after the call.

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 50% (notes has no schema description). The description adds that notes are optional reviewer notes, partially compensating for that gap, but asset_id's meaning is left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Reject a submitted owned revision') and the sibling approve_content_asset makes the opposite action easy to distinguish. It is clear enough, though 'owned revision' is slightly ambiguous about which object is being rejected.

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') but no when-to-use guidance — e.g. reject vs. request changes vs. update_content_asset, or when notes are expected versus optional.

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