approve_tool

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses authorization requirement (PM only) and scope behavior. However, lacks details on post-approval actions (e.g., whether the blocked call is automatically re-executed or requires manual retry), and no mention of logging or side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences in Chinese, front-loading purpose then explaining scope. No unnecessary words; every sentence is informative.

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?

Covers core functionality and parameter usage adequately. However, does not describe what happens after approval (e.g., automatic execution of the blocked call), nor how to obtain session_id or approval_id in typical use. Given no output schema, these gaps reduce completeness.

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%, but description adds value by explaining scope semantics ('once' vs 'session') and the source of block_id ('from poll_session or watch_result blocks'). This provides context beyond the schema definitions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'allow tool calls blocked by policy (PM only)', with specific verb '放行' and resource '被策略阻断的工具调用'. It distinguishes from sibling 'deny_tool' by being the approval counterpart.

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?

Explicitly states 'PM only', providing clear use context. Explains two scope options (once/session) and their effects. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but sibling 'deny_tool' implies contrast.

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