Approve a 2ools version

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, read/write), the description adds important behavioral context: it changes the active version, requires separately delegated review authority, and explicitly lists non-effects (no publish/export/permission changes). This gives the agent a clear safety and side-effect profile.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds value. It avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 only four well-documented parameters and no output schema, and the description covers purpose, authority, side-effects, and exclusions. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further explanation.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents every parameter (project_id, version_id, confirmation, decision_note). The description adds minimal new parameter-level meaning beyond clarifying that the version must be 'saved' and 'approved', which is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'approve one saved version and make it the project's active version.' It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it does not publish, export, or change permissions, and uses 'delegated review authority' which separates it from artifact approval or rejection tools.

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 gives clear context for use by mentioning 'separately delegated review authority' and specifies what the tool does not do ('Does not publish, export, or change project permissions'), which helps rule out alternative actions. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like reject_version or approve_artifact_version as alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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