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

Adds real consequences beyond the annotations: entries revert to draft, the owner is notified with the comment, and the action is validated against the same rules as approving (so it can fail). It does not address repeat calls or what happens after the owner re-files, and the annotations already cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive).

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?

Front-loads the action and actor in the first clause, then consequences, then the validation gate, then a worked example. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is filler.

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 3-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: who the caller is, what the tool changes, who is notified, and the precondition that approval rules are re-checked. Return values are covered by the output schema, so nothing material is missing.

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 100% and each field is documented in the schema itself (userId scope, comment purpose, submissionId origin). The description's only added value is the natural-language example mapping a sentence to the arguments; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('sends one filed timesheet back to its owner') plus the actor ('as the signed-in approver'), which separates it cleanly from approve_timesheets and recall_timesheet. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear situational context: this is the approver-initiated rejection path with a required fix comment, gated by the same approval rules as approving, and the example 'send Alice's week back: Tuesday is on the wrong project' pins the trigger. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer this over approve_timesheets or recall_timesheet, so it is context-rich but not fully routing.

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