approve_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: execution of the pending action, recording the approval, and reporting promotion outcome. This is significant transparency, though it doesn't mention error handling or irreversibility.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the consequential outcomes. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main flow: approve → execute → record → report promotion. It doesn't explain prerequisite steps (e.g., how approvalId is obtained), but the siblings imply a workflow. Overall adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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%. The single parameter approvalId is not explained in the description; the agent is left to infer that it identifies the pending action. The description doesn't compensate by specifying how to obtain the ID or any constraints. Baseline low due to lack of schema coverage and no param elaboration.

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 function: it approves a pending action, executes it, records the approval, and reports on promotion status. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like deny_action and request_action.

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?

Usage context is implied: it's for human approval of pending actions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like deny_action or list_pending_approvals, nor any prerequisites such as having a pending approvalId.

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