approve_sie_finding

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full weight. Discloses that it modifies files on disk, seals an immutable receipt, requires scope sie:queue:write, and is governed by Arbiter constitutional policy. This is comprehensive for a mutable tool.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose/actions, prerequisite, behavioral warning, and governance/scope. Front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words.

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 complexity (modifies disk, seals receipt, governed), the description covers purpose, prerequisite, side effects, required scope, and governance. No output schema, so omitted return values are acceptable.

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?

Input schema covers the single parameter with a description. The description reinforces the prerequisite (use get_sie_queue) in both the main text and schema description, adding helpful context beyond the 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 clearly states the tool approves an SIE security finding by queue index and lists specific actions (applies fixer, seals receipt, removes from queue). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_sie_queue by naming it as a prerequisite.

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?

Explicitly instructs to get the index from get_sie_queue first, and notes the tool modifies files and seals a receipt. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context strongly implies usage for approval decisions.

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