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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by spelling out consequences the annotations can't: 'A rejected post will not publish' and 'Requesting changes unlocks the draft for editing.' That state-change detail is genuinely useful. It stops short of noting retry/idempotency behavior or permission requirements, so not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the two decision branches, then prerequisites, then the consequence, then sibling routing. Every sentence carries actionable content with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the mutation's effects are covered by the description plus destructive annotations. For a 4-required-param review action, nothing an agent needs to call 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 description coverage is 100%, and the enum values and note/rev descriptions are already fully documented in the schema. The description's note that the rev must be 'current' largely restates the schema's 'Current rev from get_post', adding little new syntax or format guidance. 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 (sends a post back / rejects) and resource, plus the two mutually exclusive outcomes with their semantics ('changes_requested', 'rejected, final'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from approve_posts, so an agent can route 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?

Names the alternative ('To approve, use approve_posts') and supplies the prerequisite ('Needs the current rev') along with the consequence of each branch. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.

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