submit_signed_approval

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds useful framing with 'preparation_only' and 'does not execute', but says nothing about session/auth requirements despite the 'session_bound' tag, payload freshness (nonce, expiresAt), or what state change an approval actually commits.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, but the opening bracket block is machine metadata (capability/tier/API/authority) that precedes the actual purpose statement. The prose after it is tight with no waste.

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?

No output schema and no return-value description, so the agent cannot tell what an approval submission yields (approval status, token, execution eligibility). Combined with 14 undocumented parameters and unspecified error/precondition cases, the definition is too thin for a state-changing submission tool.

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?

14 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It only hints that the payload parameters come from request_approval_payload; nothing distinguishes signature, simulationId, policyCheckId, nonce, expiresAt, or maxUsdValue, which are required and security-relevant.

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+resource ('Approve: submit a signed EIP-712 IntentApproval payload') and names the sibling that produces the payload. The explicit 'does not prepare or execute the intent' clause separates it from prepare_intent/execute_approved_intent.

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 phrasing 'produced by request_approval_payload' implies the prerequisite tool, and the negative clause rules out preparation/execution. However, it does not say when to prefer this over request_human_approval or get_approval_status, nor what preconditions (policy check, simulation) must hold.

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