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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: an authorization constraint (must be a requested reviewer), overwrite semantics for prior reviews, and both success and error returns. What it leaves implicit is the downstream consequence of approving a revision (annotations flag destructiveHint=true, yet the description never warns that a decision may advance the proposal toward publishing).

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?

Four tightly packed sentences with no filler: purpose first, then permission and overwrite rules, then return behavior, then a parameter checklist that earns its place given 0% schema coverage. Nothing could be cut without losing information an agent needs.

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 5-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, side effects, return shape, and every input. An agent could invoke this correctly without opening any other field.

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% and the description compensates fully: it names graphId, proposalVariant, revisionId (with its source in GetProposal), decision with both enum literals spelled out, and marks comment as optional. That is more than the schema itself provides, since the enum's value descriptions are empty.

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 pair (approve or reject) acting on a specific resource (a revision of a schema proposal), and anchors it to a known equivalent action (Review in GraphOS Studio). This clearly separates it from siblings like UpdateProposalStatus, AddProposalComment, CreateProposal and PublishProposalRevision.

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 concrete preconditions: only a requested reviewer can review, the revision id must come from GetProposal's latestRevision.id, and repeat calls replace the caller's earlier review. It does not explicitly exclude or name the closest alternative (UpdateProposalStatus), so the routing guidance is strong but not fully complete.

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