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

Annotations only declare safety flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description adds substantive behavior: that it follows the chat up to ~50 s and returns the rest of the answer unless wait is false, and that allow_always persists a permission for the whole account from now on. Auth requirements and error behavior remain unstated.

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 front-loaded sentences that lead with the action and follow with behavior and endpoint. Tight overall, though the trailing POST /chats/{chatId}/approvals/{approvalId} is somewhat redundant with the parameter names.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing the follow-up polling ('follows the chat up to ~50 s and returns the rest of the answer'). Given the 4-param mutation it fully equips the agent to call it correctly.

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: it expands the 'decision' values (allow_once, allow_always with an explanation that it grants site-wide, account-level, persistent permission, deny) and explains the wait flag's follow-up behavior. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 (answer) and resource (the agent's permission request/approval), and clarifies that the approval originates from muse_chat, muse_get_chat or muse_list_approvals. An agent can distinguish this from the other sibling tools (e.g. muse_answer_widget) without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the context in which the tool applies (answering a permission request surfaced by sibling tools) and enumerates the valid decisions. It does not explicitly contrast against muse_answer_widget or state when NOT to use it, but the surrounding context is clear.

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