nyx_request_approval

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

Describes delivery mechanism, blocking behavior, timeout, and grant rules. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; missing details on timeout return behavior or side effects.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy, each sentence adds distinct value.

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?

Covers key behavioral context (blocking, timeout, grant rules) but lacks explicit output return value description and prerequisites like user configuration.

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?

Adds significant context: action_summary is for human readers, details has length/rendering constraints, service_slug scopes grants, timeout_secs bounded by user maximum. All parameters have enhanced descriptions beyond schema names.

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?

Clearly states the tool requests human approval for sensitive actions, with specific examples of use cases. Differentiates from siblings which deal with identity, service listing, and proxying.

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?

Explicitly recommends use for destructive operations, financial transactions, and unattended automation. Mentions ad-hoc and pre-configured grants, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative sibling tools.

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