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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the downstream effect (the guide can then drive a strategy or campaign), the triggering condition, and the 'same trust level as clicking Approve in the dashboard' framing. It does not restate idempotency or reversibility, which keeps it off a 5.

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-loaded with the action and its consequence, and every sentence contributes. The closing clause ('only call this once you actually want it approved') mildly overlaps the dashboard-trust sentence, a small redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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 two-param mutation with no output schema, the definition supplies the prerequisite chain, the trigger condition, and the stake (unblocks strategy/campaign generation). An agent has enough to decide correctly; only the exact return/post-approval state is left implicit, and no output schema exists to cover it.

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% — both brandId and guideId are documented with their source tools (list_brands, get_brand_guide) — so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter detail, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ('Approves a draft brand guide') and immediately frames it as the human sign-off gate, which distinguishes it from sibling writers like generate_brand_guide, update_brand_guide, and regenerate_brand_guide_section. 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?

Explicitly states the condition for use ('only needed when generate_brand_guide didn't already auto-approve it, which happens on a thin/low-confidence website scan') and adds a strong gate ('only call this once you (the user) actually want it approved'). This is exactly the when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance the dimension asks for.

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