approve_proposal

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

Disclosed behaviors: writes to skill.md, marks as approved, creates backup. No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden and does well. However, could mention if it overwrites existing content or other side effects.

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?

Three focused sentences, each adding value: action, effects (write+backup), and parameter guidance. No filler, front-loaded with the main action.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description covers inputs and behaviors. It could mention that a pending proposal must exist, but the reference to get_pending_proposals() implies that.

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%, but description adds meaning: proposal_id is the numeric ID from get_pending_proposals(). This tells the agent where to obtain the ID, which is crucial for correct usage.

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 clearly states the tool approves and applies a pending skill improvement proposal, specifying the action on skill.md and marking as approved. It distinguishes from siblings like reject_proposal (reject) and apply_proposal_tool (separate tool).

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?

Implied usage: use when you want to approve a proposal. No explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tools include reject_proposal and apply_proposal_tool, but no differentiation is provided.

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