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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint, non-idempotent) by disclosing exactly what overwrite discards (CMS edits), the resulting outcomes (overwrite_queued vs overwrite_on_next_send based on approval/schedule state), and the side effects of keep (post becomes out_of_sync, review note records Mark kept the CMS version). This is genuine behavioral state-machine detail.

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 purpose, then prerequisite, then the two choices' effects, closing with refusal condition and related tools. Information-dense and mostly waste-free, though the outcome naming could be slightly tightened.

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 needn't be described; the description nonetheless covers prerequisites, both branches' outcomes, the refusal case, and sibling routing. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 schema's enum description already covers overwrite/keep. The description adds consequence-level meaning (what each outcome does to send timing and sync state), which the enum text only partially captures.

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 ('Settles') and resource ('website CMS conflict on a blog, FAQ or competitor post') and ties it to a concrete UI affordance ('the same choice as the review page buttons'). It names related siblings (get_post, send_cms_preview, approve_posts), so an agent can place it without opening schemas.

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 invocation: 'Read get_post first', 'Show the user that diff and only call this when they have chosen', and 'Refused when the post is not waiting on a CMS conflict choice.' This states both the precondition (state is conflict) and when not to call.

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