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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the confirmation flow: external effects such as publishing, sending, live-store changes, or paid checks require the person to confirm first. It also explains that the first call may return a question plus confirmToken, and that the token must only be used after the person confirms.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a dense paragraph with awkward phrasing such as 'the same way as that change on its own' and 'where the app can show the question it does.' The information is valuable, but the structure could be much easier to parse.

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 destructive, open-world action with no output schema, the description covers the critical confirmation path and external side effects. It does not describe the successful return value after approval, but the essential invocation and confirmation semantics are present.

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 parameter descriptions already carry baseline meaning. The tool description adds useful context by identifying readWaitingItems as the source of actionId and by explaining the confirmToken confirmation workflow.

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 states a specific verb and resource: approve one task waiting on Tasks, and clarifies that Kooga carries out the proposed action. It also distinguishes approvals from questions or steps to do in Kooga, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite by pointing to readWaitingItems for the actionId and explicitly excludes questions and manual steps from approval. It does not name other sibling alternatives for those excluded item types, but the when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are clear.

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