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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the specific actions but does not disclose side effects like notifications, irreversibility, or state changes. Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), more behavioral context would be helpful.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the HTTP method and path, immediately conveying the tool's purpose. It is concise with no wasted words.

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?

Given the high parameter count (9) and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the response format, error conditions, or what happens after an action. The sibling list is large, but the description provides enough to differentiate usage.

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 67%, and the description does not elaborate on any parameters. While many parameters are self-explanatory in the schema, the description adds no additional meaning. For parameters like 'body' and 'query' described as overrides, the description could clarify usage but doesn't.

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 clearly states the verb (approve, reject, return_to_draft, comment) and resource (pending posts), and specifies scope (one or many). It also mentions authorization (Owner/admin only) and API status (Public API preview), distinguishing it from sibling tools like aidelly_list_pending_approvals or aidelly_get_approvals.

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?

The description provides authorization context ('Owner/admin only') and enumerates allowed actions, making it clear when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the sibling list offers tools for listing or viewing approvals separately.

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