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

With annotations already declaring non-readOnly, non-destructive and idempotent, the description still adds real value: it states that discard writes nothing, that approve triggers the import run, that idempotency keys must be reused on retries, and that the owner is notified afterward. It does not address whether an approved import can be undone, which matters for a state-changing action.

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?

The action and state lead the sentence, which is good front-loading, but the nested parenthetical packing decide/keepFields/keepValues/assignValues into one clause is dense and hard to parse on first read. A short bulleted split between the approve and discard paths would be clearer at roughly the same length.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the decision semantics and side effects but leaves gaps: which fields are only meaningful with approve vs discard, what jobId must reference, and what the caller gets back. It is workable but not sufficient on its own.

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 only 29%, so the description has to carry the parameter load, and it only partially does. It clarifies decision and the role of keepFields/keepValues/assignValues and idempotency_key, but the phrase "teach status words" is cryptic about what keepValues and assignValues actually accept, and jobId and reason get no mention beyond 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?

"Settles an import waiting at the column review" names a specific action and the exact state the resource must be in, and the two decision values (approve/discard) are spelled out. It effectively separates itself from siblings like start_spreadsheet_import or cancel_import by scoping to the review stage, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 precondition is explicit (an import sitting at the column review) and the two branches are explained: approve runs the import with confident columns, discard writes nothing. What's missing is a pointer to the alternative tool to use when no import is at the review stage, so the agent has no explicit fallback routing.

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