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

Adds critical behavioral details beyond annotations: both approve and amend are billed (spends money), it fails with a clear error if the run is no longer waiting, and it requires authentication with the workflows:approve scope. These are not evident from the annotations and provide safety-critical information. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each dense with value: the purpose, the meaning of 'amend', the money implication, error behavior, and auth. No filler or redundancy, with the core action stated first.

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?

Given the output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere) and the annotations are present, the description covers the essential operational expectations: how decisions map to actions, cost implications, failure modes, and required permissions. Nothing significant is left unclear for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the notes requirement for amend and explains the decision meanings, but it adds minimal new semantic information beyond the schema's field descriptions. The 'notes' parameter is already documented as required for amend, so the description adds little.

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 clearly that it answers a waiting checkpoint by request id, with three explicit decisions (approve, reject, amend). The description names the specific resource (waiting checkpoint) and verb (decide), and the generic nature distinguishes it from sibling approval tools like approve_consulting_deliverable or reject_content_asset.

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?

Specifies when to use: when a checkpoint is waiting and you have the request id. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but it clarifies that the run must be waiting to succeed. Lacks a clear 'do not use if...' statement or named alternative, so not a 5.

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