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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive, but the description adds substantive behavior: edit implies approval, unschedule clears a pending schedule, convert_to_reel requires Pro, and terminal statuses are immutable. This gives an agent the state-machine context it needs.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the tool's role and then compress all action-specific behavior without filler. The description earns its length and is easy to scan.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers actions, dependencies, plan restrictions, and immutable states. It could add expected result/response behavior and clarify whether approve publishes immediately when schedule_at is omitted, but it is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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 71%, and the description adds useful semantics beyond the schema: schedule_at uses HH:mm in the account timezone, edit requires overlay_lines and/or overlay_spec, and unschedule clears a pending schedule. Not every parameter is enriched, but the high-value ones are.

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?

The description begins 'The approval-inbox verb' and enumerates the five supported actions (approve, reject, edit, unschedule, convert_to_reel) on a draft, so the resource and operation are specific. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the action list and title make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies its usage context (approval inbox for drafts) and gives a when-not rule: terminal drafts cannot be changed. It does not mention alternative tools or explain when to prefer a sibling like publish_draft or get_draft, so usage guidance is mostly implied.

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