remediation_approve

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a record/write operation requiring an explicit human/operator approver and a preflighted transaction, but it does not state whether transaction state changes, whether approvals are idempotent, or what validation occurs.

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 an active verb and no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains economical while communicating the essential purpose.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the purpose is clear, but the description omits workflow ordering, side effects, and any output or response behavior. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, those gaps leave the agent to infer important operational details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It loosely maps approvedBy to a human/operator and transactionId to the preflighted transaction, but it adds no format, source, or relationship details beyond what the bare parameter names already suggest.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') with a clear object ('explicit human/operator approval') and ties it to a precondition ('preflighted transaction'). This clearly differentiates the tool from execution, rollback, and verification siblings.

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?

Usage context is implied: the word 'preflighted' suggests this happens after remediation_preflight and before execution. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance or mention of when not to use it versus siblings.

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