hcm_approve_write

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, which already signals this is a write operation. The description adds that it 'executes' the write, implying the write is actually performed upon approval, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, reversibility, or whether approval is final. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: verb, action, resource, and parameter are all present.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It tells the agent what to do and with what. However, it doesn't explain what the response looks like, whether the approval can be undone, or how to obtain approval_id (e.g., via hcm_list_pending_approvals). These are gaps, but the tool is simple enough that the description is minimally viable.

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. It mentions 'by approval_id' and the schema defines approval_id as a required string. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—it tells you the parameter identifies the pending write to approve, but doesn't explain where to find it or its format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Approve and execute') and a specific resource ('a pending write by approval_id'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like hcm_deny_write and hcm_list_pending_approvals, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies usage: call this when you have an approval_id for a pending write and want to approve it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like hcm_deny_write, but the verb 'approve' and the sibling context make the intended use reasonably clear.

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