approve_chapter

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'updates continuity', indicating a mutation, but lacks details on what continuity entails, side effects, or whether the operation is destructive. Adequate but not rich.

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 sentences: first states action and effect, second gives usage condition. No redundant words; 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?

Given low complexity (2 params, no annotations, output schema exists), description covers core action and key condition. Could explain 'continuity' further, but output schema likely handles return values. Fairly complete.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It explains the 'force' parameter as bypassing the third-pass requirement, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, 'chapter_num' is not described, leaving its meaning implicit.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'approve' and resource 'chapter', with added context of updating continuity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'diff_chapter' or 'get_chapter_status', which have different purposes.

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 states prerequisite: requires all configured third passes unless force=true. This gives clear context on when to use the tool (after third passes) and the optional bypass. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the condition is informative.

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