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

Annotations declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the operation promotes a draft to approved and is gated on explicit human approval of specific terms. It does not describe what happens if the draft is already committed or missing.

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, no filler, with the core action stated first and the gating condition immediately after. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the state-change and approval-gating context needed for correct invocation; only edge-case behavior (no draft, already committed) is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It meaningfully explains the 'confirmed' parameter's required semantics (only true after explicit approval of deposit, payment dates, and client messaging); scheduleId is left unexplained but is self-evident as a UUID identifier.

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: 'Mark the current draft as the approved schedule.' An agent can tell this is a state transition that finalizes a schedule, though it never explicitly names how it differs from siblings like accept_schedule_change or start_schedule.

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 an explicit precondition for use: pass confirmed true only after the freelancer approves the deposit, later payment dates, and client messaging. It gives clear context but does not name alternative tools or state when this should not be called (e.g., already-committed schedules).

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