Approve draft post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a key prerequisite ('after the user has explicitly reviewed and approved') and a system rule ('Only approved drafts can be published'). However, it does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the draft is already approved, or any error conditions, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 a clear action-first structure. Every sentence provides meaningful context: the first defines the action, the second adds a usage condition and system implication. No unnecessary words.

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 simple state-change tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to call it, and why it matters. It could add details about edge cases or effects on the draft object, but this is a low-complexity tool where the description is largely sufficient.

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 input schema already fully describes the single 'id' parameter as 'Draft id', and the description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Mark') and resource ('draft as approved'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like reject_draft and publish_draft. It is unambiguous about the action being an approval state change.

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 gives a clear condition: 'Only call this after the user has explicitly reviewed and approved the draft text.' It also implies a relationship with publish_draft by noting that only approved drafts can be published, which helps the agent sequence actions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like reject_draft, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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