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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety traits are covered. The description adds the UI-only availability constraint, which is genuinely new context, but it does not explain what approval destroys (prior revision?) or the concurrency semantics implied by 'exact revision reviewed in the card'.

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 immediately followed by the availability constraint. No wasted words, though the terseness contributes to the parameter gaps rather than resolving them.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. However, for a destructive, idempotency-keyed mutation with four undocumented required parameters, the description is too thin: it omits preconditions, the effect of approval, and error/failure behavior.

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 full burden. It hints at the revision parameter's optimistic-lock meaning ('exact ... revision reviewed'), but brandId, factId, and idempotencyKey are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 resource (business fact revision), which distinguishes it from approve_campaign and approve_automation_sample. The phrase 'the exact ... revision reviewed in the card' adds scoping detail. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast against the nearest sibling, save_brand_fact.

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 constraint 'Only available to the app UI' is a meaningful when-not signal, but no positive when-to-use guidance or alternative routing (e.g., approve vs. save_brand_fact) is given. Usage is largely implied from the name.

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