research_approve

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important constraint (the answer must come from the user, not the agent). However, it says nothing about what recording an answer triggers, whether the answer is final, or what the choice values (extend, session, deny, end) mean in effect.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler; the operative constraint is placed in parentheses right after the core action, so the most important guidance is front-loaded and hard to miss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the critical safety rule for this mutation tool. It is thin on the approval lifecycle (what recording the answer causes), but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 67%: 'choice' and 'user_reply' are documented in the schema (including the allowed values), while 'approval_id' is undescribed in both places. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Record') and a specific resource ('the USER's answer to an APPROVAL REQUIRED message'), so an agent knows exactly what data flows into this tool. It does not compare itself to the siblings (research_start, web_search, web_fetch), but those are in unrelated domains, so the risk of confusion is low.

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 parenthetical gives an explicit precondition and prohibition: 'ask the user first; never answer for them.' That tells the agent the condition under which this tool may be called. It stops short of naming alternatives or describing the surrounding approval workflow, which would be needed for a 5.

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