approve_tool

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool makes a version available for search and execution, but does not elaborate on side effects, authorization requirements, reversibility, or any impact on existing versions. This is insufficient for safe usage.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences that convey the core purpose and usage guidance without any fluff or redundancy.

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 tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that is not mentioned. The description only covers the high-level action but fails to explain parameters, expected return value, or any pitfalls, leaving the agent ill-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions for parameters. The description adds no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (tool_id, version, approved_by, notes), leaving their semantics entirely to the schema definition. This is a critical gap.

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 a reviewed draft or tested tool version so it becomes available for search and execution.' It uses a specific verb (approve) and a concrete resource (tool version), and it's distinct from sibling tools like deprecate_tool or register_tool.

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 explicitly says 'Use this only after a human or authorized approval workflow has confirmed the tool is safe and useful,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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