approve_due_commissions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the crucial detail that the first invocation is a non-mutating preview that returns a confirmToken, and that mutation only occurs on the second call with confirm:true. This reconciles the write semantics with the annotation profile. It stops short of covering token expiry, partial failures, or permission requirements.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences. The action and scope come first, and the two-phase protocol follows immediately, with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses that the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken. It could say more about what the preview contains or the blast radius of the bulk approval, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that confirm and confirmToken must be supplied together on the second call and that the token originates from the preview response. That clarifies the interplay between the two parameters rather than repeating them.

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 ('approve'), a specific resource ('every commission line'), and a precise scope condition ('whose hold period has passed'). This is clearly distinct from settle_commission and approve_referral without needing to open either 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?

The description gives a clear usage context (bulk approval of due commissions) and an explicit two-step call protocol. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, but the scope condition does most of the routing work.

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