Approve a workflow revision

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

Annotations only give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the interesting load and does so: it discloses cost ('Free'), the exact side effect ('stores approval but starts no run'), and a prerequisite ('read all issues and warnings first'). It stops short of saying whether approval is idempotent or required before launch.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and each carrying a distinct fact (what it does, cost/side effect, precondition, non-scope). The telegraphic 'Free;' fragment is slightly choppy but nothing is wasted.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema and only safety annotations, the description supplies the key missing context: cost, absence of a run side effect, and the warning-review prerequisite. Missing only edge-case behavior (idempotency, failure modes, whether prior approval blocks re-approval).

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 0% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate. It names and couples two of them ('the chosen plan revision and content_digest'), implying the digest must correspond to the revision, but it never explains revision numbering, digest format/matching rules, or plan_id. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb (approve) and resource (the chosen plan revision + content_digest), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the quote and paid-launch operations that appear as siblings (quote_workflow_plan, run_workflow_plan). 'Explicitly approve' also clarifies this is a deliberate act, not an implicit side effect.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ('Read all issues and warnings first') and clarifies what this tool is NOT for ('separate from a quote and a paid launch'), which routes the agent away from quote/run siblings. It does not state the inverse case — e.g., when approval is unnecessary or how to undo it — so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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