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 is covered structurally. The description adds real context on top: approval is bound to one exact snapshot (not a live/editable campaign), it cannot trigger scheduling or publishing, and it is UI-only — all useful behavioral facts not derivable from the annotations.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded before the constraints. Every clause earns its place by either defining what is approved or carving out what it does not do.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the mutation profile. However, for a destructive, snapshot-bound mutation with 4 fully undocumented parameters, the description leaves the parameter contract and any permission prerequisites underspecified.

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% across 4 required parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains the concept behind `snapshot` (the exact reviewed campaign snapshot), but brandId, campaignId and idempotencyKey get no mention — an agent must infer their roles entirely, and the snapshot format/hash binding is left unexplained.

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 (campaign snapshot), and pins the scope precisely: 'content, settings, assets, facts and times'. The explicit 'Does not schedule or publish' cleanly separates it from schedule_campaign and prepare_campaign, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with from the name alone.

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 clear context and boundaries: approval is the terminal action on an already-reviewed snapshot, and it does not schedule or publish, implicitly routing to schedule_campaign for that step. It also states a hard availability constraint ('Only available to the app UI'). It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool or the precondition that a review card must exist first.

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