dhp_approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a state mutation but says nothing about who is authorized, whether approval is idempotent, what happens to the request afterward, or what error occurs if approval_id is not pending. The '(human / policy engine)' parenthetical hints at actor identity but is too terse to be actionable.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and target, with zero padding. The trailing parenthetical is slightly cryptic and could be dropped or clarified.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no guidance on permissions, preconditions, or downstream effects. For a state-changing approval action, the description is too thin.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not explain approval_id format, provenance, or how to obtain one (likely from dhp_request_approval or dhp_approval_status). The parameter is largely self-evident from its name, which keeps this at a minimal 3.

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 a specific verb (Approve) and resource (a pending approval request), which distinguishes it from dhp_deny and dhp_request_approval by implication. However it never explicitly names those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no precondition that the approval must currently be pending, and no pointer to alternatives such as dhp_deny for rejection or dhp_approval_status for checking state. Usage is only implied by the word 'pending'.

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