Approve DM draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the approval action and the system rule that only approved drafts can be sent, adding useful context. However, it does not discuss reversibility, possible side effects, or return behavior, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The action is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes essential information about the purpose and usage.

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?

Given it is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description captures the core behavior and the key precondition. It could optionally mention whether approval is reversible or what happens after approval, but current information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The schema documents the single 'id' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, providing no additional semantic value.

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 begins with 'Mark a DM draft approved', which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and DM-specific scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like approve_draft and approve_retweet_draft. The second sentence 'Only approved drafts can be sent' adds further clarity about the tool's role in the workflow.

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 provides a precondition: 'Call only after the user explicitly reviewed the message', which is clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use reject_dm_draft instead, stopping short of a full 5.

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