Send a draft for approval

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description doesn't need to re-state them. It does add useful behavioral context: this routes a post into a human review workflow rather than publishing it, and requires an existing draft. It stops short of saying what happens to the post's status or whether the request can be withdrawn.

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 sentences, each carrying information: the action, the prerequisite, and the optionality of the whole flow. No filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 single-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the workflow context an agent needs: draft precondition, queue destination, and that this path is optional. Minor gaps remain around permissions/authorization and what happens to the draft's status after submission.

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% and the single postId parameter is already documented as 'Draft post id to submit for approval.' The description reinforces that the post must already be a draft, which adds a mild constraint beyond the schema, but no format or id-source detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb and resource: pushes a draft post into the human approval queue. It explicitly contrasts the action with the alternatives (publishing or scheduling directly), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like postsider_update_post_status or postsider_create_post.

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?

States the prerequisite (post must already exist as a draft, with a pointer to postsider_create_post with type "draft") and names the alternatives it replaces. It also flags that approval is optional and most posts can be scheduled directly, giving the agent a clear when-not-to-use signal.

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