art.asset.approve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. The phrase 'Approve a candidate asset' merely restates the tool's function without revealing side effects, reversibility, permissions required, or downstream consequences. This is a tautological description that adds no behavioral information beyond what the name implies.

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, short sentence with no wasted words, which is appropriately concise. It is front-loaded with the core action, but its brevity borders on under-specification; still, for what it does state, it is efficiently structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a potentially impactful approval action, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to mention what happens upon approval, whether the asset is promoted, if subsequent steps are triggered, or any conditions that should gate the call. The one-line description leaves the agent without essential operational context.

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% and each parameter (actor, reason, approval_id) already has a description in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage, but the high coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Approve') and a specific resource ('a candidate asset'), making the action unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like art.asset.reject and art.asset.request_changes, so an agent can tell them apart immediately without inspecting schemas.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reject or request_changes. The description provides no context about the approval workflow, prerequisites, or criteria that should be met before calling it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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