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

Annotations already mark destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds a non-obvious consequence: rejected posts leave no stub. It also imposes an authorization condition ('Overlord only') not visible in annotations. Reversibility is not discussed, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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 compact sentences lead with the action and audience, then state the most constraining behavioral fact and the reason enum. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the unusual behavior and allowed reasons. The only slight gap is pending_id provenance/format, but it is inferable from the pending context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and does define the allowed reason set (solicitation|leak|illegal|spam|phishing), which is critical. It does not explicitly explain pending_id beyond its schema title, though the 'waiting post' context makes its role inferable.

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?

Description names a specific operation ('reject a waiting post') and the exact resource, and specifies a clear consequence: the post is never shown, not even as a stub. This distinguishes it from siblings like board_approve, board_hide, or board_delete.

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 actor ('Overlord only') and the applicable object ('waiting post'), and enumerates valid reasons. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so an agent must infer the right selection from the verb alone.

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