approve_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'exactly once', hinting at idempotency, but fails to state whether the action is destructive, what happens if called again, permission requirements, or side effects like creating a snapshot. This is insufficient for a critical gating action.

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 sentence conveys the core action without superfluous words. Every part of the description delivers value.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat lacking. It covers the main action but omits details on return structure, error cases, and behavioral constraints. For a gating tool, agents need more context about what 'commit' means and how the snapshot is used.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does with the parameters: commit draft and create snapshot. This provides context beyond the schema, earning a score above baseline.

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 purpose: acting as a human approval gate that commits draft and proposed state exactly once and creates a snapshot. It uses specific verbs ('commit', 'create') and resources ('draft and proposed state', 'snapshot'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like submit_draft or review_run.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., after which step), when not to use it, or how it fits into the workflow. The description leaves the usage context unclear.

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