seo_unapprove_cluster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states the failure condition when briefs already exist, which is a key behavioral trait not visible in the schema. It also implies a mutation operation. While it does not mention permissions, idempotency, or return values, the disclosed information is highly relevant and valuable for this state-transition tool.

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 sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence immediately provides a critical limitation without fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and direct.

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 the tool's low complexity (two parameters, one required, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains the core state change and a critical precondition/failure mode. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and constraints without needing additional context.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (brandId and clusterId), covering 100% of the schema descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states. Therefore, the baseline score 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 action ('Revert an approved cluster back to pending_review') with a specific verb and resource, making it unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like seo_reject_cluster and seo_restore_cluster by defining the exact state transition. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 implies when to use the tool: to undo an approval and return a cluster to pending_review. It also provides an important exclusion/limitation ('Fails if briefs have already been generated'), which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide broader 'when not to use' guidance beyond the briefs condition.

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