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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by explaining the gating state transition, the no-op behavior on ineligible posts, and the 'same trust level as approve_post' bar for invocation. It does not, however, describe what a successful response looks like (no output schema exists), which keeps it short of 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the eligibility and trust caveats. It is dense with parentheticals but every clause earns its place; slightly heavy packaging 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 mutating, gated tool with no output schema and no annotations covering eligibility, the description supplies the state precondition, the eligible/ineligible post distinction, the no-op guarantee, and the human-approval requirement — everything an agent needs to call it safely and correctly.

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%, so all three parameters (brandId, campaignId, postId) already carry their provenance and constraints; the description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond restating the 'Read the words first' condition for postId. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Releases a post's copy-approval gate... so its picture starts rendering') and explicitly distinguishes itself from approve_post by naming the shared trust level. An agent can tell it apart from approve_post, approve_strategy, and the other approve_* siblings without opening any 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 explicit when-to-use ('only on a post whose brief asked for AI-generated art or video'), explicit when-not ('a template ($0) or text post is never gated'), and names the correct outcome of misuse ('harmless no-op'). It also states a precondition ('only call once the user has actually read the words'), leaving nothing to inference.

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