Choose a human executor from pending applications. They will start working on the task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| application_id | Yes | Application UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| status | No | New status: accepted |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "New status: accepted",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description aligns with annotations (non-readOnly, non-idempotent) but adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the executor will start working. Annotations already convey the mutation nature.
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?
Two concise sentences front-loading the action and result. No redundant text.
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?
Output schema exists (indicated true), so return values are covered. Description fully explains the simple action with one parameter, making it complete for this tool's complexity.
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 already describes the single parameter (application_id as UUID) with 100% coverage. Description does not add semantics beyond what schema provides, meeting baseline expectation.
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?
Description clearly states the tool selects a human executor from pending applications and that they will start working, using specific verb 'choose' and resource 'pending applications'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'reject_application'.
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?
Description implies usage context (choosing an executor from pending applications) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like reject_application or cancel_task. However, the context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.