decide_approvalApprove or reject a report assigned to the caller as a manager, adding an optional comment after confirming the decision with the user.
Managers only: approve or reject a report assigned to the caller. Confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment | No | ||
| decision | Yes | ||
| report_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent. The description adds material context beyond them: the authorization constraint ('Managers only'), the scope constraint ('assigned to the caller'), and a required confirmation step before committing an irreversible decision. It does not spell out that the decision is final/irreversible or the effect of the optional comment, so it is useful but not exhaustive.
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?
A single compact sentence pair with no waste; the authorization constraint and confirmation requirement are front-loaded and actionable.
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 destructive, single-target mutation with an output schema already present, the description covers actor, scope, and the confirmation safeguard. It is nearly complete, missing only parameter meaning and any note on reversibility, which the destructiveHint partly signals.
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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the three parameters, yet it mentions none of them. 'report_id' and the 'decision' enum are largely self-describing, but the 'comment' parameter (default '', maxLength 500) has no semantics offered anywhere about what it is for or whether it is required for rejection.
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 pair (approve/reject) and resource (a report assigned to the caller), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like submit_for_approval and list_pending_approvals. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.
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?
Provides clear context: restricted to managers, applies only to reports assigned to the caller, and requires user confirmation first. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to alternatives (e.g., list_pending_approvals to find a report_id), so it is strong but not complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.