poll_approvalPoll a pending Tier-2 phone approval. Returns the result once the owner approves or denies on their phone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenantId | Yes | ||
| approvalId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description adds useful behavioral context: it reveals that the tool blocks until the owner makes a decision ('Returns the result once the owner approves or denies'). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the polling behavior and the blocking nature of the call.
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 two short sentences, starts with the action verb 'Poll', and contains no redundant information. It is concise and well-structured.
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 polling tool with two parameters, the description covers the core behavior well enough. It explains what it polls, when it returns, and the trigger for completion. However, it does not explain what a 'Tier-2 phone approval' is or how the returned result is structured, though the lack of an output schema makes the return format less critical.
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 input schema provides no descriptions for the parameters (0% coverage), and the description does not mention approvalId or tenantId at all. The agent is left to infer their meanings solely from the names, which is insufficient, especially since the description adds no parameter-level context.
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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('pending Tier-2 phone approval'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like poll_decision and poll_pairing. It also states the outcome ('Returns the result once the owner approves or denies'), which 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 description provides clear context that this tool is for polling Tier-2 phone approvals specifically. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar siblings like poll_decision or await_decision, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
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.
Core actions like hatch, convert, upload, and lookup are generally distinct, but the polling family (poll_approval, poll_decision, poll_pairing) is easy to confuse, and await_decision misleadingly sounds like a wait operation rather than the creation of a review. Descriptions clarify boundaries, but the names alone leave room for misselection.
Most tools use an imperative verb style, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (hatch, convert, deploy, list, lookup, share, upload), some are verb_noun (poll_decision, refresh_session, get_pairing_code), and auth is a bare noun. The names are readable but do not follow one predictable convention.
16 tools sits at the heavy end of the comfortable range, inflated by three polling tools plus pairing/session management that are only tangentially related to the core task of creating and updating roosts. Each tool has a purpose, but the surface feels larger than the core domain requires.
The set covers create, read/list, update via convert/upload/deploy, sharing, and auth, but there is no delete/destroy or teardown tool, and custom domain/state management is only passively visible through lookup. Agents can complete common workflows but will hit dead ends on teardown or lifecycle management.