dsh_resolve_approval

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds a policy-level behavioral trait: the tool does not auto-allow and must be gated by human approval. However, it does not disclose what actually changes on allow_once vs reject, such as side effects to the DSH sandbox or any return feedback.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and allowed outcomes, the second gives the critical safety guardrail. It is front-loaded and all content is relevant to safe invocation.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, this description is thin. It does not explain what the optional sinceCursor and expectedRevision are for, how a pending approval is selected, or what the result of resolving one is. The safety guardrail is useful, but the rest of the invocation context is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only repeats the allow_once/reject concept from the outcome enum. It gives no semantics for taskId, requestId, sinceCursor, or expectedRevision; the agent has to rely on parameter names and schema constraints alone to understand how to identify and resolve the right pending request.

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 names a specific action ('Resolve') applied to a specific resource ('one pending DSH sandbox-escalation approval') and states the two possible outcomes ('allow_once or reject'). This is precise and clearly distinguishes the tool from the listed sibling tools, none of which are described as resolving the approval workflow.

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 gives a direct operational constraint: never auto-allow and keep the tool behind the caller's human approval prompt before using it to allow_once. This tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke this tool. It doesn't explicitly compare against alternative tools, but no sibling appears to serve the same approval-resolving purpose.

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