chap.decide.approve

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key side effect – the task completes on approval – but does not disclose audit recording, irreversibility, state prerequisites, or failure behavior beyond what parameter descriptions already state.

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 verb and object, with no filler or repetition. Every sentence 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?

The description is serviceable for a straightforward decision action but leaves gaps: no output schema, no mention of required prior state (e.g., an active review request or task), and no return or error behavior beyond the digest mismatch note in the schema. Enough for simple invocation, not for nuanced use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with types and guidance. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific action (approve) and resource (the artefact under review), and clarifies a distinguishing consequence (task completes when rule satisfied). This differentiates it from siblings like chap.decide.reject or chap.decide.override by the action verb itself, even though those siblings are not named.

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 second sentence implies the primary use case: call this when the review's rule has been satisfied. It gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool (e.g., chap.decide.reject) is appropriate when the rule is not satisfied.

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