_mcp_request_client_approval

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states creation and persistence but omits side effects (e.g., notifications, concurrency, idempotency) and does not mention what the tool returns despite an output schema existing.

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 concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with purpose but could be restructured to include parameter explanations without becoming verbose.

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 the tool has 3 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the output format or any error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters `project_id`, `question`, or `artifacts`. The agent must guess their meanings from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 the verb 'Create' and resource 'formal approval request' with initial status 'pending' and persistence, distinguishing it from sibling tools like _mcp_generate_contract or _mcp_sign_document.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as _mcp_send_status_update or _mcp_generate_delivery_note. The context of 'approval request' suggests its use, but lack of when-not-to instructions or prerequisites reduces clarity.

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