resolve_approval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavior: re-checking of hard limits at approval time and refusal if budget is busted. It does not detail authorization beyond 'operator only' or rate limits, but the key behavioral trait is well explained.

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 well-structured: a concise purpose statement, a critical caveat paragraph, and then parameter documentation. All sentences are informative, though slightly longer than strictly necessary. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (execution on approval, re-checking of limits, operator notes). It lacks details on return values or error scenarios, but the complexity is moderate and the description is comprehensive enough for agent understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for each parameter: payment_id is 'the audit id of the pending row (from list_pending_approvals)', approve is 'True to approve and execute, False to reject', and note is 'optional operator note recorded on the row'. This adds significant value beyond the schema types and defaults.

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: 'Approve or reject a pending payment and, on approval, execute it.' It identifies the specific verb (approve/reject) and resource (pending payment), and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_pending_approvals and request_approval by specifying it is the 'resume path for needs_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 indicates it is '(operator only)' and explains the context: 'the resume path for needs_approval.' It gives clear conditions for use (when a payment is pending approval) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it compared to alternatives like pay_x402 or request_payment.

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