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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses that saving discards all existing approvals, clears approvers, and lists the status transitions per request state (pending/change-requested revert, deferred/scheduled/draft keep status). It also details who gets re-notified and warns the agent to inform the user before calling rather than after.

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 critical side effects are front-loaded ahead of the mechanics, and each sentence conveys distinct information about statuses or notifications. It is on the long side and partly repeats the confirmed-flag wording already in the schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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, non-idempotent mutation with a nested field map and no output schema, the description covers consequences, status transitions, notification behavior, and a preview-then-commit flow. Nothing essential to invoking it safely is missing.

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 field map, confirmed, and ar_identifier are already documented in the schema. The description restates the two-step confirmed protocol and the 'only changed fields' semantics that the schema already carries, adding little new meaning beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Change field values on an approval request') plus a scope constraint ('the user submitted and that is still open'). This clearly separates it from approve_request, reject_request, and cancel_request, which act on requests rather than editing their values.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('still open') and an exclusion ('editing a request that has already been approved is rejected'), and spells out the call sequence: preview with confirmed=false, then save with confirmed=true. It does not name sibling tools or say where to obtain field ids beyond a passing mention, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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