Resolve approval

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the most important trait — that the call blocks — and that it returns the agent's next state. However, it says nothing about whether a decision is final/irreversible, what 'allow_for_session' scopes to or how long that session lasts, or any permission requirements for resolving someone else's approval.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the blocking behavior and return shape. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 3-parameter mutation-ish tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return state well (completed, another needs_approval, running) but leaves the decision semantics and the idempotency/irreversibility of resolving an approval unexplained. It is adequate to attempt a call but not complete enough to call confidently in edge cases.

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 only 33%: `message` is documented in the schema, while `request_id` and `decision` have no field descriptions at all. The description hints that request_id comes from a needs_approval result but never explains the three enum values (allow, allow_for_session, deny) or the consequence of each, so the most decision-critical parameter remains opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Decide a parked approval request') and anchors it to the exact upstream trigger (spawn_agent/send_message's needs_approval result), which separates it cleanly from all listed siblings. It also previews the outcome space, so an agent knows this is the human-in-the-loop unblock step.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: call this when a prior spawn_agent or send_message returned needs_approval. That is clear 'when to use' guidance with no ambiguity, but it never states exclusions or what to do if no approval is pending, so it falls short of a full 5.

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