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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: token single-use semantics, expiry/invalidation behavior, and the required authority, amount-limit and notes checks that gate success.

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?

Content is dense and mostly earns its place, but the ordering is off: the core purpose sentence ("Prepare an approved or rejected decision...") is buried third, after token mechanics. Front-loading the verb+resource would make scanning easier.

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 destructive, single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, token lifecycle and authorization requirements. It does not say what the result looks like or how success/failure is surfaced, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Only one parameter exists, and the schema already documents confirmation_token with its purpose and 20-char minimum. The description reinforces that only the token is accepted and that it must come from the confirmed preview, adding lifecycle meaning rather than repeating the type.

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 and resource ("Prepare an approved or rejected decision on an exact approval request") and ties it to the preview sibling, so an agent can tell it apart from preview_resolve_approval_request. It does not explicitly differentiate from approve_invoice/reject_invoice, which handle invoices rather than approval requests, but the resource name carries that distinction.

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?

"Apply only the exact change returned by preview_resolve_approval_request, after the user confirms that preview" is an explicit precondition and the correct initiating tool. The follow-up that changed or expired records require a new preview covers a key edge case, though there is no explicit when-not guidance against calling it without a fresh preview other than the token rule.

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