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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool blocks the parent, does not perform the action, and requires a human or manager to mark the child done before the action occurs. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure for a gating tool.

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 two short paragraphs: the first states purpose and non-actions, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence is purposeful, front-loaded with the core function, and contains no fluff.

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 complex gating tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, non-behavior, and routing. It explains the approval workflow sufficiently for an agent to call it correctly without additional 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'gate' parameter's practical usage (e.g., gate=publish instead of file_publish), which enriches the schema description. It doesn't detail other parameters but they are already well-covered in the schema.

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 it creates an approval child and blocks the parent, and explicitly lists actions it does NOT perform (send, publish, spend, delete, grant). It distinguishes itself from siblings like file_publish, storage_publish, and memory_forget by specifying when to use this tool instead.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Agent seats must call this with gate=publish instead of file_publish / storage_publish, or gate=destructive instead of memory_forget.' This provides direct routing guidance against named alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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