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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the state transition (flips to agreed) and the precondition (unanimous accepted-member approval), which are real behavioral facts an agent needs. It does not explain what makes the operation destructive despite destructiveHint=true, nor any permission requirements.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and outcome front-loaded and no filler. It earns its length, though it could carry one more clause of guidance without becoming bloated.

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 with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers the outcome and trigger but leaves the parameters, permissions, and the meaning of the destructive flag unexplained.

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 0%, so neither plan_id nor agent_id is documented anywhere. The description only obliquely references 'plan' and 'member' and adds no format, identifier, or role semantics for the two required parameters.

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 (approve) and resource (current plan revision), and the outcome (flips it to agreed). It is distinguishable from propose_plan and amend_plan by the verb, though it does not explicitly name those 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 implies the approval workflow and states the trigger condition (unanimous accepted-member approval), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and does not point to propose_plan or amend_plan as alternatives.

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