approve_draftApprove an in-review RedNote draft after verifying its content hash and confirming with the fixed phrase, moving it to approved status without publishing.
高风险操作：提供当前 contentHash 与固定确认短语后，把 in_review 草稿标为 approved。该短语不能验证调用者是人类，模型也可以调用本工具；不要把它当作真人授权边界。本工具不会发布到小红书。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draftId | Yes | ||
| confirmation | Yes | ||
| reviewerNote | Yes | ||
| expectedContentHash | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
描述披露了高风险、确认短语不能验证真人身份、模型也可调用、以及不会发布内容等关键行为特征。这些信息远超 annotations 中仅有的 readOnlyHint/destructiveHint 标记，且与 readOnlyHint=false 一致，未发现矛盾。
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?
三句话结构紧凑，先亮风险警告，再说明操作，最后澄清不发布，没有任何冗余。每句话都承载独立必要信息，且最关键的安全警示被前置。
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?
对于高风险状态变更工具，描述覆盖了调用前提、非人验证警示和不下游发布的关键边界，已具备足够的操作约束。但在无 output schema 的情况下，未提及批准后的后续状态、reviewerNote 的用途或返回行为，存在轻微缺口。
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?
描述补充了 expectedContentHash 需要是'当前'值、confirmation 是固定确认短语，这两个参数因此获得额外语义。但 draftId 和 reviewerNote 在描述中没有说明；鉴于 schema_description_coverage=0%，描述只承担了部分参数的解释责任，其余依赖 schema 自身约束。
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?
描述使用具体动词'把 in_review 草稿标为 approved'，明确指出资源和操作。同时声明'本工具不会发布到小红书'，与发布类兄弟工具明确区分，agent 无需打开 schema 即可理解其职责边界。
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?
给出了明确前置条件（需提供当前 contentHash 与固定确认短语），并强调不会发布到小红书，排除了对发布功能的期望。但未直接点出'发布请使用 create_publish_package'等替代工具，也未说明与其他状态流转工具的先后顺序，仍有少量推断空间。
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.