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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent) by disclosing state outcomes: a pending draft stays pending, a scheduled message keeps its slot, and a job application keeps its status. It also clarifies that a human approval is recorded as an edit, which is genuine mutation-behavior context.

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 scope, then layers routing and state semantics. It is dense and mostly earns its length, though the parenthetical explanation of the approval-recording mechanism is slightly verbose relative to the rest.

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, return values need no explanation, and the rich schema plus the description together cover kind, confirmation consequences, workspace resolution and state semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents kind, confirmed, workspaceId and updatedContent in detail. The description reinforces the 'one draft' scope and approval-neutrality but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 ('Save new words on one draft') and immediately qualifies the scope as approval-neutral. It distinguishes itself from the sibling that actually approves/rejects/sends by naming campaignstack_decide_review, so an agent can pick it apart from the decision tool without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('when the user asks to revise a draft for someone to sign off later, or to reword a message that is already approved and scheduled') and an explicit exclusion plus alternative ('It never approves, rejects or sends (campaignstack_decide_review does that)'). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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