approve_validation

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds behavioral context: it starts full validation processing and requires exact cost confirmation to prevent accidental billing. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, using short sentences and a clear workflow structure (numbered steps). Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and good annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and workflow. It could briefly mention what happens after approval (e.g., the job transitions to a new state), but is otherwise complete for an agent.

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% with good descriptions. The description adds extra value by clarifying that 'job_id' is the same as 'session_id' and emphasizing that 'approved_cost_usd' must exactly match the estimated cost. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Approve a preview and start full validation processing,' specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'trigger_preview' and 'wait_for_job' through the workflow mention.

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?

The description provides explicit workflow steps: call 'wait_for_job' first to reach preview_complete, then call 'approve_validation' with the exact cost. It explains the reason for requiring 'approved_cost_usd' to match the estimate, but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternatives.

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