Metis — Approve Proposal

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

Discloses key behaviors: writes to skill.md, marks as approved, creates backup. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Could mention failure modes or return value, but output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Four sentences plus an Args section. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core 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 the complexity (single required parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential action and side effects. Could mention that the proposal must be pending, but this is implied by the purpose.

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?

Description adds meaning to the sole parameter 'proposal_id' by specifying it is 'The numeric ID from get_pending_proposals()', guiding the agent on how to obtain the correct value. Schema only says integer, so this adds significant value despite 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'approve' and the resource 'pending skill improvement proposal'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'reject_proposal' and 'propose_skill_improvement' by specifying that it applies the proposal by writing to skill.md and marking as approved.

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?

Description provides clear context that this tool is for approving proposals from get_pending_proposals() and mentions the backup creation. It doesn't explicitly say when to use vs alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident given the sibling tool names.

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