commerce_po_approval_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing via domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not describe side effects, authentication requirements beyond the scope, rate limits, or what happens upon invocation.

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 short (4 sentences including the Args block) and directly communicates the action and parameters. Some routing details could be considered extraneous, but overall it's efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain the workflow's outcome, state transitions, or return values. Key context such as what triggers an approval, how results are obtained, and how to properly use the inputs is missing. Significant gaps remain.

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 Args block adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more detail is needed to compensate (e.g., expected structure of inputs). Minimal but not absent.

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 it runs the 'po_approval_workflow' action and mentions routing, but does not explain what a PO approval workflow does or how it differs from sibling tools like procurement_po_approval_workflow. The purpose is implied but vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description is purely operational.

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