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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable non-annotation context — that this is a human-clicked UI path, not an agent path — but says nothing about blast radius, reversibility, or auth requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the restriction, then the alternative route — a logical order with no filler sentences. Mild redundancy in the trailing 'Related: approve_posts, get_post' line, since approve_posts was already named above.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description fully covers purpose, the negative routing case, and the correct alternative, so an agent has everything needed to decide not to call it and what to call instead.

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%, with both parameters documented ('Post id', 'Exact rev the preview showed'). The description restates the exact-rev constraint but adds no syntax, format, or retrieval guidance beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource with scope: 'Approves one post at an exact rev.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling approve_posts by noting this variant is only reachable via a UI button, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance ('Agents never call it') and routes to the correct alternative ('to approve, use approve_posts, and only when the user has explicitly asked'). The condition that selects the sibling is spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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