superpos_request_issue_approval

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

Without annotations, the description discloses side effects: 'creates a pending approval and moves an in_progress issue to blocked'. It covers the main behavioral traits (approval request, state change) and preconditions, though it omits details on authorization or reversibility.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the main action, and avoids redundancy. However, it could be better structured to include parameter details without losing conciseness.

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?

The description covers the core action and preconditions but lacks parameter documentation. With an output schema present, return values are covered externally, but the missing parameter semantics reduces completeness for a tool with 5 parameters.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain any parameter's purpose or usage, forcing the agent to rely solely on schema titles (e.g., 'Risks', 'Summary'), which are insufficient for correct invocation.

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: 'Escalate an issue for human approval' and provides an example use case. It specifies the verb ('request approval') and resource ('issue'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'close_issue' or 'transition_issue' by highlighting the approval workflow.

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 gives usage context: 'before closing risky work' and preconditions ('Valid only when the issue is in_progress or blocked'). It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly mention when not to or name alternatives.

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