approve_cleansing_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false; the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that this is a non-executing gate action whose only side effect is recording an approver. It stops short of covering re-approval/idempotency, whether approval can be revoked, or what happens if the plan_id was never registered.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and every sentence carries weight: the first states the action, the second states the gate semantics that prevent a likely misuse. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the highest-value missing context (approval is not execution). Minor gaps around repeat approval and preconditions keep it from a 5.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially does: 'records who approved it' maps to approved_by, and plan_id is implied by 'a plan registered via register_cleansing_plan'. But it gives no format, provenance, or validation details for either required string.

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?

Specific verb ('mark ... as approved') and resource ('a plan registered via register_cleansing_plan'), and the description makes clear this is distinct from apply_cleansing_plan, which actually executes. An agent can tell this apart from its two closest siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the two-gate model: this call records approval only, and apply_cleansing_plan still needs confirm=true. It names the alternative and the condition under which each applies, and warns against treating them as substitutes.

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