approve_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral constraint: 'Only works with a server-issued token — do not invent one.' This warns against fabricating tokens and implies invalid tokens will fail. It does not detail failure modes or side effects, but the key restriction is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: purpose, usage, and a warning. No redundant wording. The structure front-loads the action and contextualizes the token requirement efficiently.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers what, when, and how—leaving no critical gaps. The warning about server-issued tokens addresses a potential misuse. No additional context is needed.

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?

The input schema only defines consent_token as a required string. The description adds essential semantics: the token is returned by call_place when error=consent_required. This tells the agent exactly where the value comes from and how to obtain it, going well beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Approve a pending call after the human said yes in chat.' It specifies the action (approve) and the resource (pending call), and the mention of consent_token ties it to a specific workflow, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: 'after the human said yes in chat' and 'when error=consent_required.' It also provides a concrete reference to call_place, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. The guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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