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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only cover safety/idempotency) by disclosing that nothing further publishes until a human re-approves, that this override holds even on brands that auto-approve agent posts, and that already-live platforms remain live. This is exactly the consequence-level context an agent needs before mutating state.

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 core action, then layered with the important edge cases. Efficient overall, though the parenthetical about auto-approving brands and the approval_url clause make it slightly dense for its size.

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 not be described. For a state-mutating tool with annotations present, the description covers the critical unknowns: resulting state, human-in-the-loop requirement, and handling of already-published platforms. Nothing essential 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?

Two parameters at 50% schema coverage. The revision parameter is documented in the schema and post_id is self-evident, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., no guidance that post_id must reference an approved post). Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial coverage handled by the schema.

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 ('Puts an approved post back on hold') and defines the resulting state precisely. It differentiates itself from adjacent operations by noting that live platforms stay live (unlike cancel) and by routing re-approval to show_posts/approval_url, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a 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?

Provides a clear trigger condition ('For when the person asks to hold a post back or unapprove it'). It clarifies who can act (only a person, not agents) but does not explicitly name a competing alternative such as cancel_post to contrast against, leaving that to inference.

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