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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the actual result states and noting that 'approved' carries an outcome and 'failed' carries a reason, which is genuine behavioral context for interpreting the response.

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, zero waste: the outcome list is front-loaded and the invocation trigger is appended. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return semantics — and it does, by listing all terminal and in-progress states. Combined with read-only annotations and a single fully-documented parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 single requestId is fully documented in the schema as 'the requestId the staging tool returned.' The description only refers to 'a change you staged' and adds no additional semantics, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the 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?

The description states a specific resource (a staged change request) and enumerates its possible outcomes (pending, approved, declined, expired, failed), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It also names the staging tools (invite_member, create_access_role) that generate the request, which cleanly separates it from every write-oriented sibling.

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 gives a concrete trigger: 'Call it after the user says they have dealt with the approval link.' The prerequisite (a change was previously staged) is implied by the parenthetical staging tools. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, but no close sibling competes for this use case.

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