workflow_epic_approve_change_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the approval roles but omits critical behaviors: whether this requires a specific sequence (both roles required suggests two-step process), what happens if the change request isn't in an appropriate state, concurrency handling via expectedVersion, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and roles without any waste.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It omits when to use it, parameter semantics, and behavioral details like idempotency or error conditions.

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. It only hints at actorRole through the roles mentioned, but doesn't explain changeRequestId or expectedVersion (e.g., optimistic concurrency). With three required parameters completely undocumented in the schema, the description falls short.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Approve a change request') and the roles involved. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like workflow_request_approval or workflow_submit_decision, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 implies usage by specifying the required roles, but it doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternatives like workflow_request_approval or workflow_submit_decision. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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