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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real consequence context by stressing this changes the publishing gate, not just a notification. It also reinforces safe retry behavior for a lost response. It stops short of stating permission requirements or exactly what state the post is left in after the approval gate is removed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequences, followed by the usage restriction and the retry rule. No filler and nothing buried.

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 and full schema coverage, the description does what remains: explains the irreversible-ish consequence and the idempotent retry rule. It could still tell the agent what a successful response changes or whether the approval can be re-requested afterward, which matters for a destructive gate-changing mutation.

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% and both ID parameters plus the idempotencyKey are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the retry-the-identical-key rule already present in the idempotencyKey description, adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 pair and resource with both concrete effects: removes the client approval requirement and revokes the review link. An agent can distinguish it from company_request_post_approval and company_get_post_approval without opening any 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?

"Use only when the user explicitly asks" is an explicit precondition that rules out speculative use, which is meaningful for a destructive tool. It does not name the sibling alternatives (e.g. request_post_approval) that would be used instead, so it falls short of a full routing rule.

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