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

Annotations only declare the write/no-idempotency/no-destruction safety profile, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: reviewer-facing card composition, the fact that editable fields are echoed back, the pending status contract, and an explicit instruction to persist action_id for follow-up calls. This is context an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then workflow, then return contract, then a concrete example — a sensible information hierarchy with no filler sentences. The Reddit example is somewhat long relative to the rest, but it earns its space by demonstrating the optional/editable fields concretely.

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?

With 8 parameters, nested objects, full schema coverage and an output schema, the only remaining agent questions are the workflow and follow-up path — both are answered, including the sibling poll and the need to retain action_id. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3. The worked example adds meaning beyond the schema by showing how kind, title, preview, target_url, and editable combine in a realistic call, and by demonstrating the dot-notation value for editable. It doesn't add format constraints the schema lacks, so it lands just above baseline.

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+resource ("Submit an action to the Impri human-approval inbox") and immediately frames the workflow, which an agent can distinguish from siblings like impri_report_result or impri_create_watcher. The example reinforces the resource shape. No ambiguity about what gets created.

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?

Explains the workflow context (operator approves/rejects, you poll for the decision) and explicitly routes the agent to impri_await_decision for the follow-up step, which is real alternative-routing value. It stops short of any when-not guidance or prerequisites (auth, rate limits), so it is clear context rather than a complete decision rule.

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