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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete failure semantics: held_reason publish_result_unknown returns 409 publish_result_unknown because the item may already be live on Threads, and in-flight publication returns 409 publishing_in_progress. What it omits is post-success behavior (does approval schedule, publish immediately, or just queue?) and any reversibility note, which matters for a destructiveHint=true operation.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the exception cases. Every clause carries actionable 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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, scope, invocation condition, and the two realistic conflict responses. The only gap is downstream effect on the item, which is minor given how precisely the error states are enumerated.

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% with a single documented 'id' parameter, so the baseline applies. The description repeats 'by id' without clarifying whether this is a library item id, a draft id, or an approval id, which is the one detail the terse schema leaves ambiguous.

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 concrete verb and resource ('moves one draft into the publishing queue by id') and the word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the bulk sibling, bulk_queue_library. It never names that sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'Applies when the user approves a single draft' gives a clear triggering condition, and the two 409 cases effectively describe states where the call should not be attempted. It stops short of pointing to alternatives (bulk_queue_library for multiple items) or stating what to do after a 409.

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