Request Approval

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it admirably. It explains that the user sees an approval card, that the decision appears as a conversation message in a specific format, and that the agent must halt until that message arrives. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of the tool's asynchronous interaction pattern.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, proactive usage, card behavior, response format, and required post-call behavior. The structure is front-loaded and logically ordered, making it easy for an agent to extract the key rules.

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 an interactive approval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the UI presentation, the user response mechanism, the mandatory stop-and-wait behavior, and the appropriate actions after approval or rejection. No critical behavioral context appears to be missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond mentioning the summary and optional details, and it does not clarify the button variant parameters. This matches the baseline score for a fully documented schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Request human approval before proceeding with an action.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the unrelated inspection, template, action, and user siblings. There is no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call proactively before significant or irreversible actions, and do not wait for the user to request approval. It also tells the agent to stop after calling and wait for the user's decision, with clear instructions for both approved and rejected outcomes.

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