art.asset.approval.request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral aspects. It only states 'Request approval', which is a side-effectful action that likely creates a pending approval record or triggers a workflow. It does not disclose what happens after the request: whether it blocks, notifies human approvers, or returns a decision. The description is minimal but not contradictory.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient for a tool with clear semantics. However, given the complexity of the tool (7 parameters, nested objects), the brevity could be a trade-off; it's under-specified but not verbose. It earns a 4 for being front-loaded and to-the-point.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the full purpose of the request, such as what constitutes a candidate asset, the role of the style, or the expected outcome. The description is too brief to be complete for a side-effectful operation.

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?

While the schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. The schema already names fields like asset_id, candidate_id, style, and actor, but the description does not explain how they relate to the approval request (e.g., that candidate_id likely refers to the generated asset version being submitted for approval). The description adds little value beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Request approval for a candidate asset' clearly identifies the action (request approval) and the resource (candidate asset), distinguishing it from related tools like 'art.asset.approve' (which approves) and 'art.asset.reject' (which rejects). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate between requesting approval versus directly approving, which could be slightly ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'art.asset.approve' or 'art.asset.request_changes'. The description does not state that this is for initiating an approval workflow rather than finalizing it, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as passing QA or the need for a style reference.

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