iota_wallet_approve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Approve') but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether this requires authentication, what happens after approval (e.g., transaction execution), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a security-sensitive wallet operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the essential action and target.

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?

For a wallet approval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'approve' entails (e.g., cryptographic signing, authorization), what happens after approval, potential security implications, or how to obtain request IDs. The context signals show moderate complexity that warrants more explanation.

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 100% with the single parameter 'request_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., where to find request IDs, format examples, or relationship to 'iota_wallet_pending' output). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Approve') and the target resource ('a pending signing request'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'iota_wallet_reject' (which presumably rejects rather than approves requests) or 'iota_wallet_sign_execute' (which might involve signing without explicit approval).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing pending requests), when-not-to-use scenarios, or explicit references to sibling tools like 'iota_wallet_reject' for rejection or 'iota_wallet_pending' to list pending requests first.

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