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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it equates the action's trust level to a dashboard click, discloses the format-specific side effect that a 'story' publishes only its photo/video (caption, hashtags, link are dropped), and describes the return payload (mediaLinks). Annotations only say destructive/non-idempotent; the description supplies the real-world consequences.

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 purpose and the publish gate in the first sentence, then layers the story caveat and response note. Efficient, though 'Same trust level as clicking Approve in the Rebbel dashboard' is soft framing that could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully notes the response includes mediaLinks, and it covers the core side effects of a destructive, non-idempotent mutation. It stops short of saying whether approval can be undone (e.g. via remake_post/archive), which would round out the picture.

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 the nested review object, including its enum values and the 'omit unless review_post ran' rule, is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (approves) and resource (a draft post), plus the crucial consequence that publish_post/schedule_post will not accept the post otherwise. That downstream gate distinguishes it immediately from siblings like review_post and ask_for_changes.

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 a clear calling condition ('only call this once you actually want this exact post approved') and ties it to the publish/schedule flow. It does not, however, name the sibling to use when the user wants to reject or revise (e.g. ask_for_changes), so the routing to alternatives is left implicit.

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