approve_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: requires a future datetime, validates ISO 8601 UTC format, and changes the post status to 'scheduled'. However, it doesn't discuss error handling, prerequisites (e.g., whether the post must already be in draft status), or reversibility.

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?

Three focused sentences, each adding value: what it does, the requirement, and the outcome. The description is well-structured and free of redundancy, though it could arguably be condensed further.

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-transition tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, required input constraint, and resulting state. It omits only edge-case details like error behavior or prerequisite validation, which are not critical for a low-complexity tool.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds an example and clarifies that the datetime must be future and UTC, which is consistent with the schema's own descriptions but does not add significant new semantic information beyond reinforcing the format.

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 action ('Approve and schedule a draft post') and the resource ('draft post'), and specifies the resulting status change. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like schedule_post or reschedule_post, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied through the draft post context and the requirement for a future datetime, but no explicit guidance is given on when to choose this over schedule_post or other scheduling tools. The description mentions the required format but doesn't address alternative workflows.

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