approve_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it warns this publishes a real listing, discloses the Pro-plan requirement and the resulting 403 'plan limit' error, and explains the return contract for every `state` value (listed/pending/failed) including that `failed` refreshes the draft and that `pending` must not be resent.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries operational content. It is dense rather than padded, though the long single paragraph packs several distinct concerns (precondition, sourcing, confirmation, plan gating, return states) that could be marginally tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by fully enumerating the `state` outcomes and the `message`/`draft` fields carried on failure. For a nested-object, plan-gated mutation tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the `edits` semantics are already documented. The description still adds value by framing `edits` as optional correction and telling the agent where new values should come from (measured size, actual brand), which is guidance the schema does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Approve a review draft and send it to the marketplace') with an explicit secondary capability ('optionally correcting fields first'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_drafts, which is framed as the read step that precedes it.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('the way to resolve a `failed` draft'), a required precondition (read the draft with list_drafts first), a data-sourcing rule (take the value from the product's own details), and a gating action (confirm with the user before sending). It also names a when-not-to-act case: re-sending on a `pending` result.

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