cache_approve_proposal

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses synchronous execution, return values (applied|failed), and idempotency. It does not mention side effects like authentication needs, but the core behavioral aspects are well covered.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The description is front-loaded with the primary action, followed by key details (synchronous application, idempotency).

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and idempotent nature. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., proposal must be pending) or what happens if proposal is not found or already approved, leaving minor gaps.

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% for the two parameters, and the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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 the tool's action: 'Approve a pending proposal.' It specifies the synchronous application to Valkey and the return of terminal status, distinguishing it from siblings like cache_reject_proposal and cache_edit_and_approve_proposal.

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?

While the description says when to use the tool (for approving proposals), it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like cache_edit_and_approve_proposal or cache_reject_proposal. This lack of differentiation for similar siblings reduces effectiveness.

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