wrike_update_approval

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'update an existing approval' without disclosing whether status changes are allowed, required permissions, reversibility, or any side effects—insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified and merely restates the tool's name. It lacks substantive information that would justify its brevity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and this minimal description, the tool is not contextually complete. It does not explain what happens when updating an approval, how status transitions work, or any return values, especially given overlapping sibling tools like wrike_submit_approval_decision.

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 complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'approval', distinguishing it from create/delete/list tools. However, it does not differentiate from wrike_submit_approval_decision, which also modifies an approval's status, creating ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wrike_submit_approval_decision or wrike_create_approval. The description offers no context for choosing this tool among siblings.

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