resolve_approval

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: approval overrides only the threshold, hard limits are re-checked, and refusal occurs if limits would be busted. It also mentions operator-only access. This provides strong transparency beyond mere safety hints.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then adds a behavioral note, then lists arguments. Every sentence provides necessary information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and behavioral implications. It lacks explicit return value or error information, but the overall completeness is high for the stated complexity.

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 the description must add meaning. The Args section explains each parameter: payment_id (audit id from list_pending_approvals), approve (True to approve/execute, False to reject), note (optional). This adds valuable context beyond schema names and types, effectively compensating for low coverage.

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 action: 'Approve or reject a pending payment and, on approval, execute it.' It identifies the resource (pending payment) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is the resume path for 'needs_approval'. The sibling tool list includes request_payment and request_approval, reinforcing differentiation.

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 specifies that the tool is '(operator only)' and explains it handles pending payments needing approval. It details the behavior on approval (hard limits re-checked). While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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