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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It reveals admin-only access and token condition, but does not disclose what happens on unauthorized attempt, whether action is reversible, or any side effects. More behavioral detail would improve transparency.

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 one sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every part adds value—admin restriction and token condition are critical for correct usage.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and prerequisite but omits explanation of contribution_id and the outcome of approval. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 only clarifies admin_token's condition but does not explain the required contribution_id parameter. This leaves a significant gap for param understanding.

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 action 'Approve' and the resource 'pending source-card contribution', with additional context of admin restriction and token requirement. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reject_contribution'.

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 specifies it is 'admin only' and mentions the conditional requirement for admin_token, giving clear usage context. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the sibling list and common sense imply when not to use it.

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