Approve an artifact by its ID. The artifact must belong to the authenticated client's domain. Approved artifacts are ready for activation but are not yet live on the site. Use when an agent has reviewed a generated artifact and wants to mark it as ready for deployment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artifact_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no safety annotations beyond a title, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful context: the domain-restriction requirement and that approval does not make the artifact live. However, it omits potential side effects, idempotency, or prerequisites (e.g., must not already be approved), which is a gap for a write operation.
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?
The description is exactly three sentences, each adding value: the primary function, a domain constraint, and the state outcome. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition.
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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics: what it does, the state change, a constraint, and when to use it. It does not explain return values or error handling, but given the low complexity, this is nearly complete.
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?
The schema has only one required parameter (artifact_id) with 0% description coverage. The description says 'by its ID', which clarifies that the parameter is the artifact identifier, but provides no format, source, or validation details. This is minimal compensation for the missing schema description.
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 clearly states 'Approve an artifact by its ID' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like activate_artifact by noting 'approved artifacts are ready for activation but are not yet live on the site', making the tool's role in the workflow explicit.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Use when an agent has reviewed a generated artifact and wants to mark it as ready for deployment', giving clear context for when to use. While it doesn't name an alternative tool directly, the state distinction from activation implies when not to use it (for going live).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, though analyze_geo overlaps slightly with get_bleed_model and get_competitor_actions. Descriptions clarify the differences, making misselection unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (activate_artifact, get_bot_activity, mark_applied). Minor deviations like analyze_geo instead of get_geo_analysis don't break the pattern.
16 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers multiple subdomains (artifacts, analysis, quick wins, reporting), so each tool has a clear purpose.
The tool set covers the full artifact lifecycle (generate, list, get, approve, activate, regenerate) and the core analysis metrics. Minor gaps like no explicit delete tool for artifacts exist, but regenerate serves that need.
