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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false): it explains that 'use' lands the correction as a new version while keeping the current one restorable, that it re-enters review for fresh approval, that a paused scheduled publish resumes after approval vs. immediately on 'keep', and lists three refusal conditions. This is exactly the reversibility, side-effect, and error context an agent needs.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the core action and its two outcomes; every clause (restorability, review re-entry, schedule resumption, error behavior) carries distinct information. It is slightly packed with em-dash asides but not padded.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers outcomes, reversibility, side effects on schedules, and failure conditions. There is no output schema to explain, and nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be 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 coverage is 100% and the action enum values are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds semantics about each action's downstream consequences (re-entry into review, schedule resumption), giving extra meaning beyond the enum labels.

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+resource ('Answers a correction Rebbel support proposed on one of your posts') and ties it to get_post's `proposal` field, so the agent knows exactly what triggers it. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like approve_post and resolve_knowledge_proposal.

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 precondition ('call this once the user has picked') and routes the agent to get_post's `proposal` field to see both versions first. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when-not-to-use, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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