zcode_approval

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the default DENY policy, the turn-blocking consequence of not responding, and the ZCODE_MCP_ALLOW_PERSIST_RULES=1 precondition for writing durable rules. It still does not explain how decisions like 'escalate' or 'modify' behave.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two facts an agent most needs (blocking behavior, deny default). No filler, though the persist_rule sentence could be tighter given it duplicates schema text.

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?

For a tool whose schema defines four distinct action modes (policy, list, respond), the description never mentions the action discriminator or distinguishes the modes. It covers the respond/persist path and the deny default but leaves the policy and list modes to the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents request_id, decision, persist_rule and session_id, making 3 the baseline. The description only adds the env-var gate on persist_rule, which the schema itself already states.

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?

States a specific verb (answer) and resource (the agent's approval, input and elicitation requests), which clearly separates it from session/chat/config siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling, but no sibling covers this domain, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explains the operational context (the server is the runtime's only client, so unanswered requests block turns) and states the default policy is DENY, which implies urgency. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over others or when each action applies.

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