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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — it never posts anywhere, requires the 'act' scope and Founder tier, is free, and mandates truthful reporting because an unreported result blinds the record. This is substantive disclosure the annotations do not carry.

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 and routing, and most sentences earn their place. It is somewhat verbose, restating the human-decision/your-reporting split twice, which trims a point off otherwise tight structure.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it changes, that it does not publish, the required scope and tier, the alternative publishing tool, and the reporting obligation. Nothing material 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%, so the schema already documents output_id, action, and final_text in detail. The description reinforces action semantics and the honesty constraint on final_text, but adds little syntax the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (resolve) and resource (one drafted marketing output in the review queue), names the source sibling (list_outputs), and distinguishes its two actions from real publishing by explicitly contrasting with approve_output. An agent can tell exactly what this does versus its siblings.

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 guidance: call 'ship' only when the founder confirms the content is out and with their go, 'skip' when they decide against it. It also names the alternative path (approve_output for actual publishing), so both the trigger and the exclusion are unambiguous.

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