Approve a 2ools version

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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the authorization model ('separately delegated review authority') and explicitly clarifies side-effect boundaries (no publish, export, permission changes). This goes beyond the annotations by specifying what does NOT happen, which is helpful for an agent assessing risk.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence delivers the core action and authorization context; the second sentence clarifies exclusions. Every word earns its place. It is front-loaded and achieves maximum clarity with minimal 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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with annotations, the description covers the operation, authorization, and what it does not do. However, it omits any indication of return value or result behavior (e.g., whether it returns the updated version). Given no output schema, a brief note on return could improve completeness. The idempotency hint is present in annotations but not explained in description, which could be relevant for repeated calls.

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% with clear descriptions for all four parameters. The description does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema—it mentions 'approve one saved version' but the schema already calls the candidate version 'saved'. The confirmation constant is self-evident. No parameter semantics are enriched beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states the action: 'approve one saved version and make it the project's active version'. It also clarifies what it does not do ('Does not publish, export, or change project permissions'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'approve_artifact_version' and export/publish tools. The verb 'approve' and resource 'version' 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?

The phrase 'Use separately delegated review authority' hints at the prerequisite context, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool. The exclusion list ('Does not publish, export...') implies alternatives exist, but no sibling tools are named. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving room for agent misinterpretation.

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