approve_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the state transition and the reason for pending approval, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or error conditions. For a simple approval action, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two short sentences, each conveying essential information. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action and context.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the condition for use and the result. However, it could mention what happens if the job is not in pending_approval state or if the user lacks permission.

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%, so the description need not add much. The description for job_id in the schema is already descriptive, and the tool's description does not add significant new meaning. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Approve' and the resource 'a job that is pending approval due to an untrusted repo owner', and specifies the state transition from pending_approval to running. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_job or wait_for_job.

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 the tool should be used when a job is pending approval due to an untrusted repo owner, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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