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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond labeling it as a 'merchant-owned Workroom approval request'. No additional disclosure of side effects, failure modes, or post-approval behavior is provided.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences: the first defines the purpose, the second provides a critical usage constraint. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), the description is adequate but could explicitly clarify that the actual send only occurs upon merchant approval. The output schema likely fills in details about return values.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds contextual value for the 'payload' parameter ('exact tool payload to execute if the merchant approves'), but otherwise does not significantly augment the schema definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it creates a merchant-owned Workroom approval request for customer-facing sends. It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('approval request'), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by prohibiting direct use of send_message, send_whatsapp_message, etc.

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 provides a strong when-not rule by instructing the agent to avoid calling direct send tools. This implies this tool should be used instead for obtaining approval. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives when no approval is needed.

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