approve_library_tool

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

The description adds a useful behavioral note: 'Script execution still obeys global configuration.' This clarifies that approval does not bypass global config, which is valuable. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The key action is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat is concise.

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?

The tool has a simple schema (one required string param) and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about what 'reviewed' means, what approval changes, and whether it is reversible. For a state-changing tool, this is a moderate gap.

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%, and the description does not explain what 'slug' refers to (e.g., the tool's unique identifier). The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('a reviewed tool active and approved'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like disable_library_tool and create_library_tool. It could be slightly more explicit about the workflow context, but the core purpose is clear.

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 implies this is used after a tool has been reviewed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like approve_preflight or run_library_tool. The context is inferable from the name and sibling list, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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