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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the state precondition (pending only), the no-op response for already-active rules, the 409 refusal for retired rules, and the audit-trail side effect of the caller's connection identity. The audit recording also explains why the operation is not marked idempotent even though a repeat call returns changed:false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, then inputs, then edge cases, then the audit note. No sentence is filler; the last one carries real behavioral 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the state precondition, the error path, the return-flag semantics, and the side effect. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 the description has to carry parameter meaning. It names both inputs semantically (project id, rule id) and gives the provenance of rule_id, but supplies no format, source, or validation detail for project_id. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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), a specific resource (one pending steering rule), and the outcome it produces ('so it reaches the iteration prompts'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like retire_steering_rule and list_steering_rules without needing to open either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the sibling that supplies the identifier ('the rule `id` from list_steering_rules') and states the applicability conditions: only a pending rule changes, an active rule is a no-op returning changed:false, and a retired rule is refused with 409. That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and where to get inputs, all in one place.

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