eco_approve

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains state changes (ECO to AUTHORIZED, ECNs to APPROVED) and the effect of the optional parameter. However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling, or whether the operation requires specific permissions, leaving some uncertainty.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide key details. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., who can approve), error conditions (e.g., ECO already approved), and the broader workflow of ECO/ECN management. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior for approved_ecn_ids. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters like note or create_pr beyond what the schema already states.

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's purpose: approving an ECO and optionally batch-approving its ECNs. It specifies the verb 'Approve' and the resource 'ECO', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like eco_create, eco_update, etc., which handle other lifecycle stages.

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 outlines when to use the optional approved_ecn_ids parameter (to approve specific ECNs) versus omitting it (approve all). However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use the tool, prerequisites (e.g., ECO must exist), or alternatives if the user wants to reject rather than approve.

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