request_standing_approval

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. It adds behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing the multi-step lifecycle (get_approval then use_standing_approval) and the human-visibility trait ('the person sees every limit'). It stops short of saying what gets returned or what happens on denial.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it is, how it sequences with siblings, and when to hold back. The scope constraint (once, fixed limits, max_uses, days) is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by telling the agent the follow-up call (get_approval) needed to retrieve the result, which is the critical missing piece for a nested-parameter mutation tool. It does not describe the failure/denial path or how the approval is identified, so it is not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains aud, days, max_uses and the fixed/vary objects in detail; that sets the baseline at 3. The prose reinforces max_uses and days and frames the fixed-limits concept, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Ask a person once to allow the same kind of action') and immediately bounds it by count (max_uses) and duration (days), which is exactly what distinguishes a standing approval from a one-shot one. It also names the sibling that does the other thing ('For one action, use request_approval'), so the agent can separate it from the siblings without opening a schema.

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 routes: use this for repeated actions, request_approval for a single action, and it spells out the downstream workflow ('Then call get_approval, and use_standing_approval for each action'). The 'Use sparingly' caution names a condition (the person sees every limit) that governs when not to use it.

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