approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals a key behavioral constraint: 'Requires editor role on the motion' and the dependency on get_motion. It stops short of explaining side effects or reversibility, but the essential context is provided.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by role and usage. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 action, the description covers purpose, permission, and prerequisite. The schema fully documents parameters. It lacks an explicit mention of return values or post-approval effects, but the tool's simplicity makes the information sufficient.

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% and all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds a workflow tip about using get_motion, but no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Approve a plan step on a motion' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'reject' and 'comment'. The purpose is immediately obvious.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use get_motion first to see the plan and identify the step_index (0-based)', establishing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It doesn't list alternatives, but the action is specific enough that the guidance is effective.

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