seshat_prepare_approval_request

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it explains the return status 'prepared_not_approved', states that the outcome is always 'blocked' by design, and clarifies that it writes no approval receipt and grants no readiness. These details align with the readOnly/idempotent annotations but provide richer context.

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 well-structured with 'Use when', 'Not for', 'Returns', and 'Outcome' sections, and every sentence carries useful information without redundancy. It is concise while being thorough.

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, the description covers when to use, what it returns, and its side-effect-free behavior. With an output schema present, it fully equips the agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Draft the request a named human must rule on, approving nothing,' which states a specific verb and resource and clearly distinguishes this tool from approval actions. It is obviously different from sibling tools that query status or run checks.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use when: readiness needs a human ruling...' and 'Not for: granting, recording or standing in for an approval.' It also notes that no tool in the set can perform approval, thereby covering alternatives.

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