cache_approve_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: it is synchronous, returns terminal status (applied|failed), and is idempotent. It doesn't explain failure reasons or prerequisites, but the core behavioral traits are well communicated.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that first state the purpose and then add synchronicity and idempotency. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary details.

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 simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and return value. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., proposal must exist) or error conditions, but is still sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add further value beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 it approves a pending proposal and applies a change synchronously. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like cache_reject_proposal and cache_edit_and_approve_proposal by focusing on the straightforward approval action, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cache_edit_and_approve_proposal or cache_reject_proposal. The usage is implied by the purpose, but no when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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