approve_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool builds an *unsigned* transaction, indicating it does not broadcast or mutate state, and specifies API key requirements. However, it does not detail what the returned unsigned tx looks like or any further steps needed, but the key point of non-broadcasting is clear.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a single prerequisite. No filler or redundant 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: the action (approve a token), the form (unsigned tx), and the auth requirement. It does not explain return value format or next steps, but 'unsigned tx' implies the output type sufficiently for an agent. Slightly incomplete only because it omits what the agent should do with the unsigned tx (e.g., sign and broadcast).

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 100% for both parameters (token_address and amount), so the schema already provides full parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Build unsigned tx to approve a token for Floe protocol.' Uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('unsigned tx to approve a token'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like broadcast_transaction or create_lend_intent.

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?

Description mentions a prerequisite: 'Requires any Floe API key (agent floe_... or developer floe_live_...)' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or references to related workflows. The usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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