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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful context by clarifying that this tool creates an approval request rather than performing the send itself. It also frames the action as merchant-owned and customer-facing, which helps the agent understand the workflow's side effects beyond the basic mutation flag.

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 sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the critical guardrail about not calling direct send tools is placed second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with an output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: it creates an approval request rather than sending, and it warns against bypassing the approval flow. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool 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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including payload and actionType details. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a merchant-owned Workroom approval request') and states its purpose ('for a customer-facing send'). It also distinguishes itself from the direct send tools by naming them explicitly, so an agent can tell this tool apart from send_message and related 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?

The description gives clear when-not guidance: the agent must not call send_message, send_whatsapp_message, send_test_campaign, or send_campaign directly. This implicitly establishes when to use this tool instead, making the routing decision explicit and leaving little to inference.

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