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

With no readOnly/destructive annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that approve inserts the post and marks it approved, and that all actions are audit-logged. However, it does not clarify whether reject permanently deletes the post or merely removes it from the queue, nor does it mention reversibility or failure side effects.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides useful information. The initial 'Operator:' prefix is slightly redundant with the title but does not detract from overall conciseness.

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 tool has moderate complexity (4 params, output schema present). The description covers the main actions and audit-logging, but omits important context such as whether reject permanently removes the post, the relationship between post_id and review_id beyond schema, and any error conditions. It is adequate but not fully complete for a mutation 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that approve 'inserts the post and marks the review approved', which goes beyond the schema's 'publish post'. This additional behavioral nuance enhances parameter understanding without redundancy.

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 identifies the resource (KA§§A post review queue) and the specific actions: list, approve, and reject. This distinguishes it from sibling admin tools like admin.audit, admin.stats, and admin.stakes, which serve different purposes.

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?

The description states the tool is for managing the post review queue, providing clear context for when to use it (moderation tasks). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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