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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the notification side effects ('the first approver gets an email now; each next approver gets one after the one before approves'), the access prerequisite, and the single-open-approval constraint. For a mutation tool, this is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, then side effects. Every sentence carries a distinct load and none can be dropped without losing information.

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?

With no output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description closes the remaining gaps: prerequisites, sequencing, notification timing, and the one-open-approval rule. An agent can call this correctly without further inference.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the '1 to 5 people' bound on the approvers array and the 'in order' semantics that the schema's bare array-of-strings does not convey. It adds value over the schema but doesn't address the optional note/title fields.

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 ('Ask 1 to 5 people to approve a Wavelength flow, in order') with the scope baked in. The sequential-approval mechanism makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like decide_approval and list_approvals without needing to name 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?

Gives clear preconditions and constraints: each approver must already be able to open the flow, and only one open approval may exist per flow. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over decide_approval, so it falls short of naming alternatives.

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