request_human_approval

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a side-effectful email send, the config-driven default recipient, and the approval-response mechanism. What it lacks is detail about tracking behavior, retry/idempotency, or approval lifecycle. It is informative 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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. It contains no wasted words, though the formatting has a minor trailing-space artifact and it over-lacks parameter detail. Structurally it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and limited schema descriptions, the description only provides a high-level workflow. Important operational details about expected fields, project identity, deadline format, and option semantics are missing. An agent could select the right tool, but would likely struggle to invoke it correctly.

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 meaningfully explains the recipient default and the approval-response request. Core parameters such as project, request, reason, options, and deadline have no described semantics, leaving the agent unable to fill required arguments confidently.

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 a specific verb and resource: email a human approval request with a traceable approval ID. It also explains the expected recipient behavior (reply with 批准 or 拒绝), which makes the tool's unique role unambiguous. This distinguishes it from general email tools and status-checking siblings.

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 conveys the core context: use this when a human must approve something and the reply will be 批准 or 拒绝. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like check_approval_status, wait_for_approval, or the generic email senders, so an agent must infer when to prefer this tool.

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