Approve daily draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds real value by clarifying that approval has no external effect, but it never explains why the call is flagged destructive, what state becomes immutable after approval, or whether it can be undone — the most consequential unknowns for a destructive, idempotent mutation.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The operation and the key scope constraint lead; the non-effect clarification follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is fairly excused, and the human-confirmation gate is stated. But for a destructive, idempotent approval step the description leaves the actual state transition, error conditions (stale version, unconfirmed draft), and consequence of the destructiveHint unexplained — more is warranted given the mutation risk.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden and it only partly does: 'one exact persisted draft version' maps loosely to draftId plus version, and 'explicit human confirmation' names the third parameter's intent. It adds no detail on the UUID format, the version>0 constraint, or what string the confirmation field expects (e.g., an echo of the version).

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 (Approve), a precise resource (one exact persisted draft version), and a scope qualifier ('exact persisted version') that separates it from save_daily_draft/update_daily_draft. The closing clause 'does not publish externally' pins down what the tool is NOT, distinguishing it from publish_to_notion and publish_to_calendar in the sibling list.

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 a clear precondition ('after explicit human confirmation') and an explicit exclusion ('does not publish externally'), which effectively routes the agent away from the publication siblings. It stops short of naming the specific alternative to use when the intent is to publish, or saying when approval should be withheld.

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