approve_proposal

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the access restriction 'SR only' and clarifies the approve/disapprove behavior, but does not disclose further side effects or state changes. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single, concise sentence with no redundant words. Front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the access restriction. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with three well-documented parameters and no nested objects or output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and the 'SR only' constraint. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of all three parameters with descriptions. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states about 'approve' and 'proposalId'.

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 action ('Vote to approve or disapprove') and the resource ('governance proposal'), with the added scoping constraint 'SR only'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_proposal, delete_proposal, and get_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?

The description gives clear context (voting on proposals) and includes a usage restriction ('SR only'), but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use. This is implied by the clear context.

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