skills.reviewApprove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behaviors: the approved body hash is stored and a status check (pass/warn/fail) runs at approval time. However it omits what happens if the status is fail/warn (does the approval still succeed?), required permissions, and reversibility.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action verb first and no wasted words. It is efficient, though it packs two clauses that could arguably be split for clarity.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It leaves the agent without parameter semantics, permission requirements, or the outcome behavior on a failed/warn status.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not: 'path', 'notes', and 'reviewed_by' are never explained or mapped to the prose. The mention of a 'body hash' and 'status' does not correspond to any documented parameter.

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 ('Approve') and resource ('a skill'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling review verbs like reviewReject and reviewRequest. It adds a concrete note about storing the body hash and running a status check, but never names the sibling alternatives to sharpen the contrast.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative actions (reviewReject, reviewRequest, reviewGate). 'at approval time' hints at timing but does not tell the agent when this tool is the correct choice versus a sibling.

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