approve_draft

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool promotes a draft to the scheduled queue and that the post will publish at scheduled_time without further approval. This covers the main behavioral traits, though it could mention that the action is irreversible or requires specific permissions.

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, each earning its place. The first sentence defines the primary action, the second adds an important constraint. No redundant or filler 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the effect (scheduled for publishing). It could mention that the post is removed from drafts or that scheduling is irreversible, but it is mostly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 little beyond the schema: it only restates that post_id must be of a draft (implied) and scheduled_time must be in the future (already in schema). No additional semantic detail.

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 ('Approve a draft post and schedule it for publishing') and resource ('draft post'). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_post or update_post by specifying the scheduling action, which is unique among the listed tools. No ambiguity.

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 explicitly states a key precondition: 'Only works on posts with status draft.' This guides the agent to only use the tool when the post is in draft status. It does not explicitly mention when not to use alternatives, but the condition provides sufficient context.

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