request_approval_payload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this is a preparation-only, session-bound operation that builds an unsigned EIP-712 payload for a human approver, clarifying that no signing or submission occurs here. It does not cover rate limits or exact authentication mechanics, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loads capability, tier, and API metadata before the action sentence. The bracketed metadata is dense but purposeful, and there is no filler 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 seven-parameter preparation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition explains purpose and sequencing but leaves most parameters and session requirements undocumented. More detail is needed for confident invocation beyond the two required basics.

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 seven parameters. The description only indirectly maps intentId through the API path and approverAddress through 'human approver'; it does not explain decision, sessionId, agentAddress, sessionToken, or expiresInSeconds. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb, 'build', and a specific resource, the 'EIP-712 IntentApproval payload'. It also positions the tool before submit_signed_approval and labels it preparation_only, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling that submits the signed approval.

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?

It explicitly says the payload is what the human approver signs before submit_signed_approval, giving clear sequencing context. It does not, however, name alternatives such as request_human_approval or get_approval_status, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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