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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false and openWorld=true, and the description usefully adds two things beyond them: the owner-only authorization requirement and retry-safety via idempotency_key. There is mild tension with idempotentHint=false, but the guarantee is conditional on supplying the same key, so it is supplemental context rather than a direct contradiction.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what changes, who is permitted, and how retries behave. The core action is front-loaded and there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and an 8-parameter sparse schema, the description covers permission and retry semantics but omits the merge/replace behavior for unspecified settings and leaves the duplicated workspaceId/workspace_id fields and generic body/query overrides unexplained.

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 coverage is 50%, so baseline is 3. The description maps its 'member submissions / owner review' language onto requireMemberApproval and requireOwnerReview, but says nothing about idempotency_key semantics, brand_id, the workspaceId/workspace_id duplicate, or the body/query override escape hatches that make up the other parameters.

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+scope: 'Update the workspace's approval settings for member submissions and owner review', which is far more precise than a bare 'Update settings'. It is clearly the write counterpart of the sibling aidelly_get_approval_settings, but the description never names or contrasts with a sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives one real usage constraint – 'Only the workspace owner can change owner review' – which tells the agent who may call it and under what condition. However, it never says when to use this versus aidelly_get_approval_settings (read-first) or how to sequence it, so usage is only implied.

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