approve_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool commits a staged write after human approval, but does not describe consequences (e.g., whether the write becomes irreversible, approval requirements, or what happens on failure).

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 extremely brief and front-loaded with a clear purpose, but it is under-specified given the three required parameters and workflow context. It reads as concise without being sufficiently informative.

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 part of a human-in-the-loop workflow (with propose_observation, list_pending_writes, reject_write), and has three required parameters plus an output schema. The description does not place approve_write in this workflow, explain where write_id comes from, or indicate what the output will contain. This leaves critical context 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 0% and the description itself provides no information about write_id, approver, or reason. The description utterly fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation, leaving all three required parameters undefined.

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?

Description identifies a clear action ('Commit a staged write') and a specific resource, which distinguishes it from the sibling reject_write. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or scope limitations, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 'HUMAN-IN-THE-LOOP GATE' implies this tool is used when human approval is required for a pending write. However, there is no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives', no mention of reject_write or list_pending_writes as counterparts, and no prerequisites for obtaining write_id.

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