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 that a private token is required (an auth requirement), but a match-approval mutation could plausibly be irreversible or emit notifications, and none of that, nor the return behavior, is stated. Partial disclosure only.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words, where the parenthetical modifier for setuju=false is placed exactly where it is needed.

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 3-param mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers only the core action and the token requirement. It omits the default value of setuju, what approval actually triggers downstream, and error behavior on an invalid token.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for two of three params (token = private/credential, setuju=false = decline, implying approve is the default since setuju is optional), but jodoh_id carries no explanation beyond its self-suggestive name.

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 (approve/decline) on a specific resource ('a match'), and even clarifies the inverse case via setuju=false. It does not name or position itself against siblings like cek_jodoh or minta_dipertemukan, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 dual-mode phrasing ('approve, or decline with setuju=false') implies when the tool is used, but there is no explicit when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternative tool named for the opposite direction (e.g., minta_dipertemukan for requesting a match instead of responding to one).

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