request_change_approval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that it requests approval but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it blocks, notifies human approvers, or returns a status). This leaves important behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a usage note, making it easy to scan.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters, and the schema covers parameter meanings. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the agent can expect after the request (e.g., a response via await_user_response). The lack of this information leaves the description adequate but incomplete.

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%, meaning both parameters (change_summary and diff_preview) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond that, only hinting at 'important modifications' and 'before they are committed.' This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose: requesting approval for specific code changes. It uses a specific verb ('request approval') and resource ('code changes'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like request_plan_approval by focusing on code changes rather than plans.

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 phrase 'Use for reviewing important modifications before they are committed' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the usage context is well-defined.

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