Check authority for an action

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description adds the decision semantics and the required next action, which is genuinely useful context. It does not clarify whether a third outcome (e.g. a hard denial) can occur, which matters for a gate on consequential actions.

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, both earning their place, with the trigger condition front-loaded before the outcome semantics. No filler or restatement of the title.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does explain 'allow' and 'ask'. It leaves open whether other outcomes exist and never explains the required 'workflow' parameter, both of which an agent gating real actions would want.

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 67%: action and attempt_id are documented in the schema, while workflow has no description in either place. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no action naming convention, no workflow semantics), so it does not compensate for the gap — 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 defines a specific function — a pre-flight authority check that returns 'allow' or 'ask' — and spells out what each outcome means. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling twin_request_approval, which it names as the follow-up path.

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?

It states exactly when to call it ('before any consequential action: sending, paying, committing, writing to live systems') and what to do on each result, routing explicitly to twin_request_approval for the 'ask' case. Nothing is left to inference.

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