yax_submit_approval

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only. Description adds that it is for the authenticated agent, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what happens upon approval/denial, leaving behavioral gaps.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded, containing no extraneous information.

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?

With no output schema and moderate complexity, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the expected response, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., agent must have a pending approval), making it incomplete for a state-changing tool.

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 50%; only 'approval_id' has a description ('Policy approval token'), while 'decision' lacks one. The tool description provides no additional parameter information, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema description.

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?

Description clearly states the action (approve or deny), the resource (pending policy approval token), and the agent (authenticated). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which handle approval submission.

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?

Implies usage when needing to approve or deny a pending approval token, but lacks explicit guidelines on when to use versus alternatives or prerequisites such as having a pending approval.

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