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

Despite annotations covering safety hints, the description adds rich behavioral context: auto-approval depends on channel settings and claim flags, publication occurs at scheduled time only if already scheduled and auto-approved, and the result indicates which path occurred.

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 core action and uses four concise sentences. The 'Related' list is helpful but somewhat loose and could be trimmed, slightly reducing structural tightness.

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, the description need not explain return values, and it gives enough conditional and fallback detail for correct invocation. Annotations plus schema plus description cover the agent's needs for this mutation tool.

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 single postId parameter is fully described in the schema. The description implies that a draft is submitted but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so 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: 'Sends a draft to review.' It clarifies the conditional auto-approval behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like approve_posts and save_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?

Explains the key conditional outcome (auto-approve vs. not) and gives a fallback: call get_setup_status if refused due to workspace setup. It also lists related tools, but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over save_post or approve_posts.

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