execute_approved_intent

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

Goes well beyond annotations: discloses that the lifecycle API rejects client-supplied receipts, that this depends on a trusted adapter and server-side transaction verifier being deployed, and that the practical response is a structured error. It does not explain the session-binding requirement or how the sessionToken/signature relate to that rejection, which leaves some behavioral gaps.

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?

Only two sentences, which is appropriately short, but it is front-loaded with a bracketed metadata token string ('Capability: preparation_only; tier: session_bound; API: ...; authority: ...') that is dense and partly redundant with the schema, delaying the single most important fact — that the tool is not usable for real execution.

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?

Given no output schema and a destructiveHint=true annotation, the description does the crucial job of revealing the tool currently cannot execute and returns a verifier-unconfigured error. However, for an 11-parameter, nested-object, session-bound tool it leaves most parameter semantics and the relationship between session/approval artifacts entirely undocumented.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only intentId (implicitly, via the URL) and the concept of 'calldata' are touched on; sessionToken, signature, signedPayload, receipt, agentAddress, and the status/txHash fields are never explained.

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 bracketed header and body identify the resource (an intent, via /api/v1/agent/intents/{intentId}/execute) and that it is an execution step, but the operative message is that the capability is 'preparation_only' and effectively non-functional. That makes the actual purpose ('observe an execution_verifier_unconfigured error') ambiguous against a name that promises execution, and it does not clearly differentiate from siblings like confirm_execution or execute_swap.

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?

Explicitly states the constraint: 'Unavailable for generic public execution' and 'Use this only to observe the structured execution_verifier_unconfigured response', plus a negative ('raw arbitrary calldata is rejected'). That is clear when-to-use and when-not guidance; the only gap is that it never names a sibling to use instead for actually executing an approved intent.

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