add_adhoc_approver

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this inserts a sysapproval_approver row and requires WRITE_ENABLED=true. This is useful operational context. It does not mention potential side effects like notifications or duplicate handling, but the core write behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and data effect are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is cleanly separated. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple three-parameter write operation, the schema, annotations, and description together cover the inputs, the required precondition, and the data effect. The main minor gap is not explaining what happens after the insertion, such as whether the approver is notified or whether duplicates are prevented.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add an ad-hoc approver to an in-flight approval on a record.' It also names the underlying data effect (inserts a sysapproval_approver row), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling approval tools like approve_request or create_approval_rule.

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 clear context by requiring an 'in-flight approval' and states the prerequisite 'Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is specific enough to route an agent correctly.

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