approve_protected_action

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

The description reveals a key behavioral trait: time-limited approval. It aligns with the destructiveHint annotation (since approval allows protected changes). However, it does not explain consequences of the approval, such as whether it can be revoked, or what the default behavior is without approval.

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?

Single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core function. No superfluous words. Front-loads the key verb 'grant' and the action scope.

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?

The description provides the basic purpose but omits details like what happens upon approval (e.g., returns success, token), or the absence of an output schema means the agent must infer behavior. Given the moderate complexity (5 params, destructive hint), some additional context would be valuable.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the concept of 'time-limited' which corresponds to ttlMs.

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 tool grants a time-limited approval for edits or publish actions on protected files. It uses a specific verb ('grant') and identifies the resource ('protected file actions'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the focus on 'approval' and 'protected files' is distinctive enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when direct edits are allowed or when other approval tools might be appropriate. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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