nyx_request_approval

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it blocks the agent, delivers via push notification, and times out. However, it does not describe the return value or how the agent receives the decision (e.g., approved/denied), which is a minor gap.

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 efficient sentences front-load the purpose and mechanism, then provide usage guidance and options. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter constraints. However, it omits any mention of the tool's output or return value, which is needed since no output schema exists.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds some context (e.g., timeout bounded by user max), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states 'Request human approval before performing a sensitive action,' specifying the verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like nyx_exchange_identity and nyx_proxy_request by focusing on human-in-the-loop approval for sensitive actions.

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 states when to use: 'for destructive operations, financial transactions, or any action where unattended automation is inappropriate.' Also indicates alternative approval methods via pre-configured grant rules, helping the agent decide contextually.

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