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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific outcome (revoking approval, sending back to submitter), but it doesn't detail side effects like the state of the queue item or whether a comment is required.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no wasted text.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and prerequisite, but it lacks detail on the comment parameter and the overall workflow (e.g., what happens to the item after sending back). For a simple tool with annotations, it's adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (queue_item_id or comment). It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter docs, leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from names.

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?

The description clearly states the action: revoke approval on an already-approved item and send it back for revisions. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like deny_queue_item or approve_queue_item.

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?

It provides a clear precondition: the item must be already-approved. This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., if the item is not yet approved).

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