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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable workflow context ('Drafts the change only; the human must approve'), which the annotations don't convey. However, it leaves an unresolved tension with destructiveHint=true and doesn't explain what happens after approval or what the draft affects, so this is useful but not fully fleshed out.

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 short sentences, front-loading the when-to-use condition before the behavioral constraint. No wasted words. Slightly terse given the approval semantics involved, but well-organized.

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. For a draft-plus-approval tool, the description covers the trigger and the draft-only nature adequately. It could say more about the approval handoff (e.g., how the human approves), but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 100%, so both parameters (layer, change) are already documented in the schema, including the layer values and a change example. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the shared example, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (drafts) and resource (messaging policy change), with concrete examples (quiet hours, auto-reply rules). The title's broad 'Manage' is narrowed correctly by 'Drafts the change only', so an agent knows this produces a draft, not an applied policy. No conflicting sibling exists in the list, so differentiation isn't at issue.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'When the human wants to change messaging policy'. It clarifies the boundary that the human must approve, implying this is a first step rather than a final action. No alternative tool is named, but none competes directly in the sibling list.

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