Approve pending post

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

The description reveals concrete behavioral effects beyond the annotations: releasing a pending post, scheduling publication (immediate if time passed), notifying the author, and specific error codes (400, 403, 404). The annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the full burden and exceeds it.

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 well-structured: purpose is first, followed by role requirement, behavioral effects, errors, and usage guidance. Each sentence adds useful information, though the final 'Use this when...' sentence largely restates the opening purpose, creating minor redundancy.

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?

With a single parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly: prerequisites, side effects, error conditions, and clear usage context. Nothing essential 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?

The input schema already describes postId as 'The post ID to approve.' with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new parameter-level information. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully handles parameter semantics; the description only implies the param by referencing the post being approved.

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 states a specific verb ('Approve'), a specific resource ('a post awaiting team approval'), and the condition that defines that resource (approvalStatus 'pending'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like publish_post, reject_post, and update_post by focusing on the approval workflow rather than immediate publishing or editing.

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 when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user (an owner/admin/approver) wants to approve a post awaiting team approval.' It also details the required role and the conditions under which errors occur, effectively excluding cases where the post is not pending or the user lacks permission.

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