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

Annotations only declare mutation/no-destruct/open-world. The description adds real behavioral context: it refuses when the gate belongs to another user, a wrong label errors listing the real options, and it introduces the two-step approvalId/needs_confirmation flow plus the required echo-as-confirmation pattern.

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-loads the core action ('Records THIS user's verdict...') in one dense paragraph. The echo instruction is packed with clauses but every sentence earns its place; slightly convoluted but no wasted text.

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 mutation tool with an approval/confirmation flow, the description covers ownership refusal, error behavior on bad labels, and the echo confirmation step. With no output schema and full schema coverage, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so all five parameters (including note, runId, verdict, workspace, approvalId) are already documented. The description reinforces that verdict labels originate from the gate, but adds little syntactic or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: records THIS user's verdict on a task run waiting on them. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing workbench_tasks_run_view as where the gate labels are shown, so an agent can tell it apart from workbench_tasks_start/freeze/get.

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 clear context — use it on a run that is waiting on the user — and names the sibling that surfaces the gate labels. It notes the refusal condition (gate assigned to someone else), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other task lifecycle tools like start or freeze.

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