send_approved_drafts

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

Given no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavioral traits: it is a write operation, it skips certain rows, honors throttle, defaults to dry run, and has a force option for dedup bypass. It does not mention idempotency or side effects on the drafts file, but covers the main mutation behavior.

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 concise and well-structured, using short sentences to convey key information. Every sentence adds value: the action, filtering, throttle, and flags. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool's functional behavior well, but lacks information about the return value (e.g., success count or errors). Given the complexity of iterating over a file and posting, details on error handling or status reporting would improve completeness. The absence of output schema increases the need for such info in the description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning beyond defaults: it explains that 'drafts_path' is the file to process, 'dry_run' defaults true, 'force' bypasses dedup, and 'rate_seconds' controls throttle. Three of four parameters are clarified, though 'drafts_path' is only implied.

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 tool's purpose: to sequentially post approved drafts from a specific file. It uses a specific verb ('post') and resource ('drafts.json entries'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bulk_draft_replies' by specifying the filtering and sequencing behavior.

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 provides good usage guidance, including which entries are processed (approved only), the throttle behavior (rate_seconds), and the dry_run and force flags. It implies when not to use (for proposed/rejected entries) but does not explicitly list alternatives or when to choose this over siblings like 'confirm_reply'.

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