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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses the owner-only permission requirement and that a note is optional. It omits the consequences of the decision — whether it is final, whether the ask is consumed, and what the caller receives — which matters for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the owner-only constraint, and no filler. The compression is slightly aggressive — 'an ask' is never defined — but nothing is wasted.

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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition leaves too much unsaid: irreversibility, effects on the requester, and error cases are all absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate: it clarifies that 'id' identifies the ask and that 'note' is optional, and the approve/deny enum is self-documenting. It adds no detail on id format/scope or what the note is used for, so the compensation is only partial.

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 names a specific action and resource: resolve a pending 'ask' by id with a binary approve/deny decision. That distinguishes it from the 'ask' and 'await_answer' siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

'Owner only' establishes an authorization precondition for use, which is real guidance. It gives no when-not conditions, no mention of what to do if the ask is already resolved, and no explicit pointer to a sibling for creating asks.

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