Delimit Social Approve

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing action-dependent side effects: approve performs a network write, reject discards the draft, and list is read-only. This is especially valuable because the tool-level annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) cannot express per-action behavior.

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 compact, well-organized, and front-loaded with the core purpose before structured guidance sections. Each sentence earns its place: when to use, when not to use, sibling contrast, and side effects. The minor repetition about delimit_social_post reinforces rather than bloats the message.

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 tool with mixed read/write/discard actions, the description covers all essential contexts: queue origin, alternative tools, per-action side effects, and the source of the required draft_id. Because an output schema exists, the absence of return-value details is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters, including that draft_id is required for approve/reject and is returned by delimit_social_post(draft=True). The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so 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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource statement: 'Manage social media drafts — list, approve, reject'. It enumerates the exact operations, making the tool's scope immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with delimit_social_post, which creates the drafts.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('to clear the social drafts queue created by delimit_social_post(draft=True)') and when-not-to-use guidance by naming delimit_social_post and delimit_social_history as alternatives. This leaves no ambiguity about when the agent should select this tool over its siblings.

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