Approve

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

Annotations only carry the standard mutation flags (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description goes well beyond them, disclosing the authorization rule with its error code (-32011), the quorum-dependent completion semantics (approval may leave the review open under all_approve or quorum:N), and the schema adds the digest-mismatch refusal (-32074).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then authorization, then completion semantics and the alternative. No filler; every clause carries operational information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies what annotations cannot: caller eligibility, error codes, and the interaction between this decision and the review's rule. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly or route elsewhere.

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 all six parameters are documented in the schema itself (from, tags, comment, task_id, workspace, approved_artefact_digest, including the SHA-256 pattern and its binding/refusal behavior). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (the artefact under review), and pins the scope with 'as it stands', which distinguishes it from chap.decide.override (corrected version) and chap.decide.reject in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly names who may call it (only the addressed reviewer, others refused with -32011) and names the alternative for the adjacent case ('Use chap.decide.override instead to accept a corrected version'). The when-to-use condition is fully spelled out.

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