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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the exactness requirements (verbatim message, hash of the exact approved text), the rule that approval stands only for the shown action_fields, that Rithmo treats the call as the agent's report, and what to do if Rithmo refuses. It does not address the tension with readOnlyHint=true even though 'records it as your report' implies a write, which is the one notable gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the gating condition, then parameter-by-parameter guidance, with nothing gratuitous. The telegraphic backtick-heavy style is dense and borders on cryptic, but every sentence carries operational information.

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 multi-step protocol tool with no output schema and a nested action_fields object, the description covers the trigger condition, exact input construction, failure handling, and post-call behavior. Only the approval_id provenance and agent_key semantics are missing.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does well for four of six parameters: run (from start_agent_run, started_by person), content_hash (format 'sha256:' + hex of the exact approved text), action_fields (must match what was sent, none if none sent, must be shown to the person), and said (their exact message). approval_id and agent_key are left entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (record an approval the person wrote in chat) and immediately scopes it to text previously sent via request_approval, naming that sibling so the agent can distinguish the two. The title alone is vague, but the description removes ambiguity.

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?

It states an explicit precondition ('Call only when the person you act for wrote the approval word to you in this chat'), anchors it to the prior request_approval call, and closes with 'Then act on it as on any approval.' It also distinguishes the refusal path from the success path.

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