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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the real weight: it discloses the state change (subsequent media generation uses this sheet instead of the neutral one) and a human-consent gate. It stops short of saying whether approval can be revoked or reverted later, or whether existing already-generated assets change retroactively.

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, zero filler: effect first, precondition second, hard prohibition last. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and only coarse annotations, the description covers effect, scope and consent requirements. It doesn't indicate what the call returns or whether the replacement is reversible, which would have closed the remaining gap.

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 parameters are documented there, including that character_id comes from lab_list_characters. The description only implies project scoping; it adds no format or constraint meaning beyond the schema, so 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 concrete verb (approve) and resource (style sheet) and then spells out the consequence: images, clips, storyboards and identity checks switch from the neutral sheet to this one. That effect distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling create/discard style-sheet tools without needing to name them.

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 an explicit precondition (show the person the views first), an explicit trigger (only after they said yes), and an explicit prohibition (never approve on your own). This is about as unambiguous as when-to-use guidance gets.

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