Request Trade Intent Approval

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

Annotations are minimal (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries most of the burden. It discloses the YOLO auto-approval behavior and that it sends a single approval request, adding value beyond annotations. However, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or what happens outside YOLO mode beyond the implied manual approval.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers purpose and a critical mode (YOLO). It doesn't explicitly state that the intent must exist, but 'persisted' implies that. It also doesn't mention when to choose this over the similar sibling, but the description's scoping partially addresses that.

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 schema has one parameter (intent_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description clarifies that the parameter refers to a 'persisted trade intent', giving it needed semantic meaning. This compensates for the lack of schema documentation, though it doesn't specify format or source.

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 states a specific verb ('Request') and a precise resource ('a single Telegram approval covering a persisted trade intent'). It differentiates from the sibling 'request_trade_approval' by scoping to persisted trade intents, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 implies the tool is used after a trade intent has been persisted, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'request_trade_approval', nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance. The YOLO mode note is behavioral context, not selection criteria.

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