brief_approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the core integrity rule ('a hash mismatch is refused'), which is real behavioral context, but leaves open who may approve, whether approval is idempotent, whether it locks or freezes the brief, and what happens on retry.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The key constraint (hash mismatch refused) is placed at the end as a caution, and the object of the operation is front-loaded.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 5 undocumented parameters, the description covers only the central semantics. It says nothing about return values, error behavior beyond the refusal, or the three unexplained scalar parameters, so an agent would still be guessing about invocation details.

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% for 5 parameters. The description explains the roles of brief_hash (must equal the current hash) and variant_hashes (per-platform hashes being approved together), but gives no meaning for brief_id, approver, or approved_at, and does not hint at the nested shape of variant_hashes.

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 and resource: recording the owner's approval of the current brief hash plus variant hashes. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like brief_read, brief_create, and brief_update, though it does not name any of them for contrast.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance. The phrase 'EXACT current brief hash' hints that the brief must be read first, but the description never says to call brief_read beforehand, nor when to prefer this over brief_update.

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