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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the write operation, signing into KB, and dropping of rejected candidates. It mentions role-based access. However, does not state reversibility or side effects like whether approval is irreversible.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action and resource. No unnecessary words. Efficient and to the point.

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 mutation tool with 3 required params and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, who can use it, and what happens after action. Could mention return values but not critical given no output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It mentions 'Operator-only' hinting at operator_key, and action is implied by the enum, but candidate_id is not described. The description adds some context but does not fully explain each parameter's meaning or format.

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 action (approve/reject), resource (KB-refresh candidate signal), and outcome (signed into live KB or dropped). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_signal_candidates by being a mutation. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states 'Operator-only', indicating a specific user role requirement. It implies usage context (deciding on candidates for KB refresh) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools. However, given the sibling tools, the context is clear enough.

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