Request human approval for a write action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: one-time token, cryptographically bound to the EXACT arguments, must be returned unchanged, and the tool never executes the action. It leaves open token expiry/TTL, whether approval is synchronous or asynchronous, and whether anything is destroyed on reuse — real gaps for a security-gating tool.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return contract, then the usage constraint, then the non-execution disclaimer. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does explain the returned artifact (the token) and its use, which is the key thing an agent needs. The remaining gap is the nested free-form `args` object and the unused `requester_note`, neither of which is documented anywhere.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are three parameters, so the description must compensate. It effectively covers `tool` (the two enum values are named) and `args` ('bound to the EXACT arguments'), but says nothing about `requester_note`, nor about what shape `args` must take given its free-form additionalProperties object.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Queue a write action ... for human approval' with the two eligible write tools named explicitly. It also draws the crucial boundary against its siblings create_booking and cancel_booking ('it never executes the action itself'), so an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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?

It identifies the context (before a create_booking or cancel_booking write) and describes the follow-on step: the token must be passed back in the write tool's `approval` argument. It stops short of an explicit rule such as 'never call create_booking/cancel_booking without first obtaining a token', so the when-not is implied rather than stated.

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