rws_operation_approve

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the essential behavioral fact that approval does not execute/launch the operation, which prevents a wrong assumption. However, it does not disclose authorization requirements beyond 'Human only', nor whether prior proposal state or expectedRevision mismatch causes failure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the human-only restriction and the non-launch clarification; every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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 description captures the key non-obvious behavior (approval ≠ launch) and human restriction, which fits a simple approval action. But with 0% parameter documentation, a nested operationRef object, and no output schema, the agent lacks guidance on providing correct identifiers and version values.

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 0% with four required parameters including a nested operationRef object with version constraints. The description only implies 'this exact operation plan' and expectedRevision/version semantics are not explained; it doesn't tell the agent that expectedRevision is a concurrency guard or what operationRef requires.

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 (approve) and resource (this exact operation plan), and clarifies scope with 'Human only' and 'this exact plan'. It distinguishes itself from the propose/dismiss siblings by naming the approval action, though it doesn't explicitly reference rws_operation_propose or rws_operation_dismiss by name.

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?

'Human only' gives clear context for who invokes it, and 'approve this exact operation plan' implies it follows a propose step. The critical caveat 'Approval never launches it' tells the agent what this does not do, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs rws_operation_propose/rws_operation_dismiss routing.

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