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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the invocation is not sent directly by the agent, but queued for a human who sees the terms field by field, and only their answer releases the move. It also discloses the completion condition (both parties approving the same hash), which is non-obvious state semantics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries distinct information (action, human-confirmation flow, hash requirement, completion condition). Slightly dense but no wasted filler.

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-party approval protocol with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation flow, the hash prerequisite, and the terminal agreed state. It does not describe the response shape or failure modes, but the essential invocation context is present.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that subject_hash is required specifically for approve and must match the hash read from negotiation_read, adding meaning the schema's terse 'Required for approve' only partly conveys. room_token and decision remain covered by schema.

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+resource pair (accept or decline the terms) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like negotiation_propose and negotiation_cancel by framing the action as a response to terms already on the table. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite for approve: the subject_hash must be quoted and comes from negotiation_read. It explains the confirmation context (human must confirm). It stops short of stating when to choose this over negotiation_cancel, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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