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

Annotations cover safety flags (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the post must be in_approval, only a current-step approver may succeed, and rejection terminates the entire workflow so the post becomes 'rejected' and never publishes. That is exactly the destructive-adjacent consequence an agent needs.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and precondition before the divergence from approval. Slightly long, but each sentence carries distinct operational information rather than repeating the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent the resulting state (status becomes 'rejected', no publish) and the permission model. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the comment is surfaced to the requester and other approvers in the review thread, clarifying its audience and intent.

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 (reject) and resource (a post's approval workflow) and immediately scopes it. An agent can distinguish it from approve_post without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit preconditions: only works on approval_status 'pending', instructs to check get_post first, and names the sibling approve_post with the shared approver requirement. The when/when-not conditions are fully spelled out.

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