Approve or reject a submission. Approving releases the perk; rejecting requires a reason. Use this when the business chooses manual review over auto-verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Required when decision='reject'. 1-500 chars. | |
| decision | Yes | Approve releases the perk. Reject explains why the proof was insufficient. | |
| submissionId | Yes | Submission id from a prior submitProof call. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key side effects: 'Approving releases the perk' and 'rejecting requires a reason.' This gives the agent critical behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention other traits like idempotency or finality.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes essential behavioral and usage context without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, trigger context, and key side effects. It doesn't explain return values or post-conditions, but the most important outcome (perk release) is disclosed, making it sufficiently complete.
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%, with all parameters including decision's enum and reason's requirements already clearly documented. The description does not add new parameter details beyond reiterating that rejection requires a reason, which is already in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool's specific verb and resource: 'Approve or reject a submission.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting this is for manual review over auto-verification, and contrasts with submitProof (the prior step).
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?
Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when the business chooses manual review over auto-verification.' This clearly indicates when the tool is appropriate, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: campaigns, submissions, benchmarks, pricing, actions, influencers. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even getBenchmarks vs getPricing are clearly separated by context.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in camelCase (e.g., createCampaign, listActions, reviewSubmission). The verbs are varied but the structure is uniform, making the set predictable.
10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and matches the server's scope: campaign creation, stats, submissions, and reference lookups. Each tool earns its place without bloat.
Core lifecycle coverage is solid: create/list/get stats for campaigns, submit/review submissions. Minor gaps exist (no update/delete campaign, no single-submission detail view), but agents can work around them using existing tools.