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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutating nature is known; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the authorization rule, the exact refusal rule name self_approval, and that both success and refusal are audited. It stops short of describing what happens to the proposal on failure beyond refusal, but the safety-relevant context is solid.

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 followed by the constraint and the fallback. Little waste, though the final sentence about auditing could arguably be folded into the preceding clause.

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 no output schema, the description covers the authorization model, the error rule name, and the audit trail, which are the things an agent most needs before calling. The remaining gap is the unexplained app parameter, which is left entirely to the schema field name.

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 only 50%: the id field is documented as coming from approvals_list, while app is undocumented in both schema and description. The description says nothing about parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered app parameter.

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?

The description leads with a specific verb and resource, 'Approve a held promote so it goes live', which states both the action and its effect. It is clearly distinct from the sibling approvals_list, which supplies the hold id, and from apply_update, which performs the change rather than authorizing it.

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?

It states the precondition that the proposer cannot approve and that an agent cannot approve an agent's own proposal, plus the fallback of asking the owner. That covers the main when-not case well, but it never explicitly names approvals_list as the source of the hold id or references how a hold is created in the first place.

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