decide_approval

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important side effect, that approving sends immediately, and states the human-authorization guardrail. However, it does not say what rejecting does, whether the action is reversible, or what permissions or response to expect, so the behavioral disclosure is only partial.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and immediate effect are front-loaded, and the important usage restriction follows naturally without adding bulk.

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 simple action tool the description covers the central purpose, guardrail, and approve side effect, and no output schema is expected. Still, with no annotations and sparse parameter descriptions, the missing behavior for reject and the unstated return value leave a noticeable completeness gap.

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 only 25%: only decided_by has a description. The description clarifies the decision semantics ('Approving sends it immediately') but says nothing about id or the optional reason, and it does not compensate for the low coverage. The enum and schema carry most parameter meaning.

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 opens with a specific action on a clear resource: 'Approve or reject a held message.' It adds the concrete consequence 'Approving sends it immediately,' and this clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools such as list_pending_approvals or send_broadcast.

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?

'Only use this when a human has explicitly told you which decision to make' is an explicit condition, and 'the hold exists precisely so that an agent is not the one deciding' is a clear when-not. This prevents an agent from substituting its own judgment while deciding whether to call this tool.

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