dhp_request_approval

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares fail-closed semantics, states a return value (approval_id), and imposes a gating rule that prevents premature execution. It omits failure modes, error shapes, and any permission prerequisites, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and the safety-critical gating constraint. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padding.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the workflow gate is covered. However, with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation for a call that gates destructive/financial operations, the definition leaves an agent without enough context on inputs or failure behavior.

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% and the description says nothing about handoff_id, worker_id, action_class, or the free-form nested details object. With four required but undocumented parameters, the description does not compensate for the schema gap at all.

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 and resource ('Request approval for a destructive/financial action'), which separates it from decision siblings like dhp_approve/dhp_deny. It does not explicitly compare itself to those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition (destructive or financial actions) and a mandatory follow-up gate ('must NOT run until dhp_await_approval reports approved'). It does not name exclusions or clarify the relationship to dhp_approval_status/dhp_approve, so it is clear but not fully routing-grade.

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