create_approval_auto_accept

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions creating a rule but does not disclose side effects, whether it modifies the original task, or what 'shape' implies. Insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. No bullet points or structured format to aid comprehension.

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 the existence of sibling tools like 'approve_task' and 'set_approval_preference_state', the description does not explain how an auto-accept rule differs or fits into the workflow. An output schema exists but its content is unknown; the description alone is incomplete.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the two parameters. 'task_id' is not explained (which task?), and 'body' with default '{}' is cryptic. The description fails to clarify how parameters relate to the rule creation.

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 the tool creates an auto-accept rule from an existing approval task's shape, but 'shape' is vague and the exact meaning is unclear. It uses a verb and resource, but lacks specificity to distinguish from sibling tools like 'approve_task' or 'set_approval_preference_state'.

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 such as approving a single task or setting other preferences. No prerequisites or context for when creating an auto-accept rule is appropriate.

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