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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses key behavior: it never posts to a channel, requires 'act' scope and Founder tier, and that reporting the outcome is not optional. It also clarifies the semantic difference between 'done/published' and actual publishing, which is non-obvious and valuable.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core operation, followed by usage and constraints. However, it includes somewhat verbose motivational phrases ('because an unreported result leaves the record blind to what the work earned', 'Report only what is true...') that are not strictly necessary, making it slightly longer than ideal.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers all relevant context: what it does, when to use each action, what it intentionally does NOT do, required scopes/tier, and the mandatory reporting behavior. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 100% and the schema already describes both parameters accurately (action enum with ship/skip meanings, output_id from list_outputs). The description reinforces but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, though it does connect them to the workflow context.

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 uses specific verbs ('Resolve', 'ship', 'skip') and clearly states the resource: 'one drafted marketing output in the founder's review queue (from list_outputs)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting that this does NOT publish anywhere, contrasting with 'approve_output' for real publishing.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for each action: 'call 'ship' the moment the founder confirms the content is actually out, with their go and never on your own; call 'skip' when they decide against it'. It also names the alternative tool for publishing ('approve_output') and clarifies that reporting is mandatory.

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