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

Discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: credit debit with a pointer to get_plan_and_credits, that it launches an AI writing job that then waits for review, that nothing is published, the free re-approval path for failed generation, and the idempotency-key retry pattern. Annotations only give generic safety hints, so this description carries substantial additional context.

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?

Four short sentences, all front-loaded with the action and its effects; the cost pointer and idempotency guidance are tight and every clause adds operational value.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers cost, side effects, non-publication, and retry semantics. The only gap is brief_id semantics — e.g., whether it must be an existing draft — which the agent must infer.

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 must compensate. It meaningfully explains idempotency_key (unique per call, reuse on retry) but adds nothing about brief_id beyond the schema's uuid format/pattern. One of two parameters is covered, leaving partial compensation.

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 (draft brief) and immediately explains the consequence — debiting credits and kicking off AI draft generation that awaits review. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like create_brief, update_brief, archive_brief, and generate_article.

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 for when to use it: on a draft brief, plus the special case that re-approving a failed draft is free, and points to get_plan_and_credits for cost. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives (e.g., generate_article, publish_article), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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