gorelo_create_project_task_approval

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-not-destructive profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them — that this reaches out to contacts, implying notifications are dispatched — but says nothing about what an approval record looks like, whether duplicates are permitted, or what is returned.

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 with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true concision.

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 with a nested body object, two annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about side effects (notifications), return value, and duplicate handling. The fully documented schema keeps this at minimum-viable rather than inadequate.

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 100%, including the nested body and its Name and ContactIds fields, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description contributes nothing extra — it does not clarify the relationship between projectId and taskId or what 'Name' is displayed as.

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 names a concrete action (asking contacts to approve something) and the resource it lives on (a task), so an agent can tell it creates an approval request rather than reading one. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling gorelo_create_ticket_approval, which the name alone would have to carry.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus gorelo_create_ticket_approval or gorelo_get_project_task_approval, no prerequisites, and no note that the task must already exist in the given project. The agent must infer all routing from the tool name.

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