approve_vrt_results

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

With no annotations, description partially reveals behavior: it approves and promotes, requires confirm. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting baselines), permission requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but incomplete.

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, front-loaded with purpose and key requirements. Efficient but could benefit from structured listing of parameters.

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?

Despite high parameter count, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not explain how to specify scenarios, what confirm does beyond being true, or the workflow context. Incomplete for safe usage.

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 has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description only adds meaning for 'confirm' and 'scenarios', leaving project, environment, runId, viewports, browsers unexplained. Does not compensate for schema gaps.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'approve', the resource 'failed VRT results', and the outcome 'promote them to baselines'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_vrt or explain_vrt_failure by specifying this is an approval action.

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?

Description mentions requirements (confirm: true, explicit scenario list) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_runs or get_run_failures. Usage context is implied but not fully clarified.

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