Submit For Approval

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: a refusal condition and a user-confirmation requirement. It omits what happens after submission or reversibility, but the added value is real.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the critical usage constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides adequate context for a mutation tool. It lacks parameter details and next-step guidance, but the critical safety constraints are present.

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% and the single required parameter report_id has no description. The description only implies it must be a caller-owned draft report, with no format or sourcing guidance. This is minimally adequate for a required parameter.

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?

Specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('draft reports to their manager'), clearly distinct from siblings like draft_expense_report or decide_approval. The approval workflow aspect is implied rather than stated, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

States an explicit prerequisite ('Only call this after the user has explicitly confirmed submission') and a refusal condition ('Refused if compliance blockers remain'). No alternatives are named, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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