device_approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does solid work: it explains that 'decision' is approve or deny, that command can override the proposed command as a human-corrected variant, and that include_screenshot=True attaches a real screenshot with an off-by-default tradeoff. It does not describe post-approval effects or authorization requirements, but it discloses the core behavioral semantics.

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?

Two sentences deliver the essential behavioral content with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place: one for core resolution semantics, one for optional overrides and the screenshot tradeoff.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation concerns: what the tool does, what decisions are valid, how to override the command, and what include_screenshot does. It is slightly incomplete on what happens after approval or denial and does not describe the return value, but nothing critical prevents an agent from calling 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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines decision values, explains command's override role, and clarifies include_screenshot's effect and default. thread_id is only implied through the PLAN.md signature rather than semantically described, but the context of resolving a pending action makes its role reasonably clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a pending action from any device_* tool.' It clearly differentiates this from its siblings, device_do and device_screenshot, by positioning it as the approve/deny gate for pending actions rather than an executor or capture 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 clearly implies use when a pending action exists from any device_* tool and states the decision values and optional command override. It references device_do's tradeoff, giving a useful contextual anchor, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name direct alternatives for exclusion.

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