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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: approved posts publish automatically at their scheduled time, there is no separate publish step, and a stale rev is refused. These are exactly the consequences (irreversibility, concurrency risk) an agent needs when annotations only give destructiveHint/idempotentHint flags.

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-loads the action and input shape, then the publish semantics, then the usage gate, then related tools. No sentence is filler.

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 and full annotations already present, the description covers the remaining gaps: auto-publish timing, absence of a separate publish step, stale-rev rejection, and the explicit-user-intent requirement. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the nested rev/postId descriptions already state provenance from get_post or search_posts, so the description largely repeats the schema. It adds the consequence of a stale rev, which is useful but is behavioral rather than additional parameter syntax.

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 (posts/revisions) and pins the input shape to [{postId, rev}]. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like submit_post, review_post, and reschedule_post.

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?

Explicitly gates usage: 'Only use it when the user has explicitly asked to approve,' which is a real when-to-use constraint. It also names related tools (get_post, search_posts, review_post) so an agent can route correctly.

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