approve_request

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false. The description adds useful behavior context: the requirement that WRITE_ENABLED=true must be set, and the condition that the request must be pending. This goes beyond the structured data and helps the agent understand prerequisites and state constraints.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with a parenthetical requirement. It front-loads the action and contains no unnecessary words. Every element earns its place.

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 mutation tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It states the action, the prerequisite, and the target state. It does not describe return values or failure conditions, but these are less critical for a straightforward approval action.

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 100% with clear descriptions for sys_id and comments. The tool description does not augment parameter meanings, so the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 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 'Approve' with a clear resource ('a pending approval request'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'reject_request' and 'list_approvals'. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is used for approving approval requests, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as 'reject_request' or state when not to use it. The WRITE_ENABLED requirement provides a constraint but no guidance on choosing between tools.

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