chat_approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral consequence: before approval no writes happen, after approval only the allowlisted cwd is writable. It also mentions that an optional comment is stored. This is meaningful context beyond the schema. It doesn't cover error handling or rejection side effects, but the key behavior is well captured.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral consequences are stated in a compact, easily parseable manner. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the pre/post conditions and the allowlist constraint. It doesn't enumerate edge cases like what happens on a reject or if the thread has no pending approval, but those are predictable from the schema and the overall tool interaction. The essentials are covered.

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 67% (thread_id and comment have descriptions; decision has only an enum but that is self-explanatory). The description adds context about pendingApproval and the approval flow, but does not add param-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It stays at the baseline for adequate 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 is explicit: 'Approve or reject pending implement/install actions from chat_send.' It names the resource (pending actions) and the specific verb (approve/reject), and it clearly differentiates from siblings like chat_send and run_workflow by focusing on the approval gate.

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 explains the pre- and post-approval behavior ('Until Approve, Cursor stays plan-only... After Approve, the closer may write only inside the allowlisted cwd'), which effectively tells an agent when to invoke this tool (when there is a pendingApproval). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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